Preamble

Preamble

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

INCOME TAX

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Teachers (Salaries)

Sports Facilities (Glasgow)

Devolution

Moss Morran Petrochemical Project

Liniclat School

Pout Box

Oil Pollution (Emergency Services)

Kirktons Primary School, Arbroath

Royal High School, Edinburgh

Rents

Local Authorities (Housing Expenditure)

Nursery Education

Ambulances

Farm Incomes

Fishing Fleet

Oral Answers to Questions — R. W. McCONNACHIE v. DANCKARTS WOODWORKING MACHINERY LIMITED

Oral Answers to Questions — COURTS (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)

Oral Answers to Questions — DRUG ABUSE

Oral Answers to Questions — COURT OF SESSION AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY

EUROPEAN COUNCIL (PARIS MEETING)

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL PAID ENVELOPES

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 30 MARCH

SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN CARS

SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN CARS

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRY BILL

Clause 1

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS

Orders of the Day — CENTRAL LANCASHIRE NEW TOWN

Orders of the Day — Second Reading Committee

Orders of the Day — ARBITRATION BILL [Lords]

Orders of the Day — Second Reading Committee

Orders of the Day — CONSENTS TO PROSECUTIONS BILL

Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Preamble

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that on the ratification by the Government of Canada of the Convention set out in the schedule to the draft order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Canada) Order 1978, which draft was laid before your House, an order be made in the form of that draft.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Teachers (Salaries)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will implement the declaration of intent made by both sides of the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee to restore as quickly as possible the earnings of teachers which have been eroded; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): The Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee agreed in April 1978, with my representatives formally dissenting, to set up a working party to look at the structure of teachers' salaries, with particular reference to internal and external relativities. The teachers' side has now submitted a salary claim based in part on the working party's calculations. Any changes in teachers' salaries will, of course, have to be considered in the context of the Government's pay policy.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Secretary of State aware that teachers' salaries are so inadequate that a fully trained primary teacher in the first year earns £51 per week, whereas a first year trainee caretaker earns £53·65 per week? Ordinary and honours graduate teachers earn £65 and £69 per week respectively, whereas police officers earn £81 per week at the age of 21, plus overtime, free uniform and mortgage allowance. Is it the Secretary of State's intention to restore the value of the Houghton award, updating the salaries in an effort to avoid regrettable industrial action which will result in further chaos in Scottish schools?

Mr. Millan: I shall not negotiate teachers' salaries across the Floor of the House. The negotiating committee meets next Monday.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) to state his argument rather than ask a question, but I hope that other hon. Members will not seek to follow suit.

Mrs. Bain: Will the Secretary of State say when he expects a firm announcement to be made about Scottish teachers' salaries? Is it possible to have a review of the system of negotiations because, invariably, the teachers do not receive the increases in April but have them backdated, usually from August or September?

Mr. Millan: I can only repeat that there is negotiating machinery and that it is meeting next Monday. It would be improper for me to make announcements about teachers' salaries today.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I accept that my right hon. Friend cannot negotiate teachers' salaries across the Floor of the House, but will he give an indication that an offer will be made at the meeting next Monday? The EIS alleges that no offer will be made. My right hon. Friend knows that there have been difficulties with the negotiations. Therefore, can he give us an assurance that an offer will be made?

Mr. Millan: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is asking the same question. The management side of the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee is not the exclusive property of the Secretary of State. I have representatives there, but so do local authorities. We should leave the negotiations to the committee.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the Secretary of State aware that the refusal of the management side to make an offer on previous occasions has led to further serious disruption in our schools? That has been particularly damaging to students studying for examinations. Will the Secretary of State do all that he can to make sure that an offer is made at the meeting, so that we can hold out the prospect of an early settlement to the dispute?

Mr. Millan: I have nothing to add to my previous remarks. There is a meeting on Monday, and if an offer is to be made it will be made there and not here today.

Sports Facilities (Glasgow)

Mr. Selby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect the construction of motorways and other roads for which he is responsible has had on the sporting facilities for young people in Glasgow: and what steps are being

taken to replace those that have been built over.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): My right hon. Friend is not aware that any roads for which he has responsibility have affected sports facilities in Glasgow. All roads within the former city of Glasgow are the responsibility of Strathclyde regional council. It is for that council and the district council to secure the provision of adequate recreational facilities in the area.

Mr. Selby: Is the Minister aware that in Govan and the neighbouring constituency represented by the Secretary of State for Scotland we had an area known as"Fifty pitches ", and that those pitches have been removed so that a motorway can be built and been replaced by eight pitches in the neighbouring constituency and four in Govan? Is he aware that the football pitches in Plantation Park in Govan have been removed and that two have been provided in another area, but are not much used? Although kickabout areas have been provided, they include no dressing-room facilities, and there is a waiting list—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an Adjournment speech.

Mr. Selby: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question has finished. He has asked it.

Mr. MacKenzie: In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I know the"Fifty pitches ". Indeed, it may come as a surprise to the House to learn that, when I was several stones lighter, I used to play on those pitches from time to time. I share my hon. Friend's concern about the loss of these valuable amenities, and I hope that the local authorities will do all that they can to make up the losses. I shall certainly pass on to them my hon. Friend's concern about the losses.

Devolution

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the outcome of the referendum in Scotland on 1 March

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take following the referendum on devolution.

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on future arrangements for Scottish devolution.

Mr. Millan: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, the appropriate order under section 85(2) of the Scotland Act will be laid in due course

Mr. van Straubenzee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many English Members who, under his devolution proposals, would have been made second-class Members view his obvious discomfiture with relish? Will he undertake that no further proposals for devolution to Scotland will be put forward except on a United Kingdom basis, with electors in England entitled to express their view as well?

Mr. Millan: I cannot give those assurances. I understand that the official policy of the Conservative Party is to favour devolution in principle. We should like to see their reaction in practice.

Mr. Jessel: As the House has to interpret the referendum result in order to reach a decision, how does the right hon. Gentleman think we can have any confidence that the 31 per cent. voting"No"adequately represents that view, since many people were told that abstention was equivalent to voting"No "?

Mr. Millan: The most important fact about the referendum in Scotland is that there was a majority of"Yes"votes.

Mr. Renton: Are not the words of Burns singularly applicable to the Government:
 Wee, sleekit, cow'rin' tim'rous beastile, O what a panic's in thy breastie! "?
Is it not abundantly plain that if the"Yes"campaign had not had two party political broadcasts, while the"Noes"had none, the"No"vote would have been in the majority?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman will need to do better than that.

Mr. Dewar: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the ludicrous efforts of the

hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) are a strong argument, in themselves, for devolution? Does he accept that there is a strong feeling in Scotland that, although there is still an argument to be won there, as the rather disappointing referendum result illustrates, the Labour Party and the Government must continue their commitment to devolution and fight to ensure that a better structure of government is brought forward for Scotland?

Mr. Millan: Yes. I was glad to be at the Scottish conference of the Labour Party at the weekend. The conference overwhelmingly carried a statement reasserting the commitment of the Labour Party to devolution for Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Since Scotland voted"Yes"on 1 March, why is the Cabinet dithering?

Mr. Millan: The SNP, in the House and elsewhere, has a long history of dithering. I have said that the order will be brought before the House in due course.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that the referendum result cannot be regarded as a mandate for a major constitutional change, particularly in view of the massive misleading propaganda put out by the"Yes"campaigners, including the SNP, that an abstention would be the same as a"No"vote? Does he also agree that, no matter how we regard the result, it does not serve Scotland's interests to have a long delay before putting the issue to the House so that hon. Members can make their decision?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman was a prominent member of the"No"campaign, and he lost.

Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Tories that an absolute majority of those who turned out to vote in the referendum voted"Yes"despite the scaremongering tactics of some of the"No"campaigners, including the Laird o' the Binns and the architect of the 40 per cent. rule, who travelled all the way from Islington to Scotland to try to blackmail Scottish workers by telling them that they would lose their jobs unless they voted"No."?

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend is basically right. The important aspect of the result is that there was a majority of"Yes"votes.

Moss Morran Petrochemical Project

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has not yet announced his decision on the Moss Morran petrochemical project; and whether he will state the reasons for the long delay.

Mr. Millan: It has been necessary for me to give full and thorough consideration to the representations that I invited from parties on the question of radio transmissions. I have just received further advice from the Health and Safety Executive on this question and have circulated it to parties for comment.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the report indicates that the risks arising from the project are minimal, although, of course, they can never be eliminated? Can he also confirm that, despite the fact that the SNP is against the project, all the Labour-controlled local authorities are desperately anxious that, in the interests of Fife and Scotland, this highly technological project should go ahead? Can he give any indication of when he will be coming to a final decision?

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend will realise that I am not able to comment on the merits of the planning application at the moment, but the Health and Safety Executive has taken a view which is public knowledge, since I have made it available to the various parties to the inquiry. It is also possible for other interested parties to see those conclusions.
I have asked for comments by the end of April on the papers that I have circulated, and I shall have to consider those in due course to see whether I can then reach a final conclusion. Apart from the question of radio transmissions, I gave a provisional conclusion on the planning inquiry a considerable time ago.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Secretary of State accept that, where human safety is concerned, he is right to take time over such matters? However, can he indicate what sort of central co-ordination exists to look at, for example, the Barry Buddon

project, where there is a plan for a methane pipeline to cross it? Is he aware that some of the problems that have arisen in connection with Moss Morran may have been avoided if there had been prior consultation on the issue?

Mr. Millan: I cannot comment on what might be a planning application for Barry Buddon. I understand that there is no specific proposal definitely committing ICI to that location. If there were, it would almost certainly be the subject of some sort of inquiry and I might then have to make a decision about it.

Mr. Gourlay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that local authorities in Fife are becoming extremely exasperated about the long delay in reaching a decision on this project? We appreciate the need of my right hon. Friend to secure maximum safety, but is he aware that we believe that the time has come for a final decision to be made? Can he therefore give an assurance that a decision will be made as expeditiously as possible after 28 April?

Mr. Millan: All I can say is that a decision will be made as expeditiously as possible, but I cannot at the moment say what that decision is likely to be or, indeed, whether I shall be able to make a final decision when I see the results of any representations that I receive on the documents that I have circulated. It would be wrong for me to say to the House or anyone else that, regardless of the nature of these representations, I shall immediately make a decision. I have to await the representations.

Sir John Gilmour: Will the Secretary of State say whether many of the difficulties that he is experiencing stem from the radio spark hazard or result from evidence in other parts of the world following explosions in similar plants?

Mr. Millan: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the documents which have been circulated, he will see that we are dealing with the question of radio transmissions.

Liniclat School

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he intends giving to the letter written by the convenor of the Western Isles about Liniclat school.

Mr. Millan: I have explained to the convener of the Islands Council that I am unable at present to allocate the level of capital expenditure required for this project.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the project for this school has the backing, which is greatly appreciated, of hon. Members of every party in the House? Is he aware also that there is general agreement in the Scottish press that this is a long-required facility for the education of the people of the islands concerned? Is he saying that funds are so short that this project, which is planned over three years, cannot be started now, even though he has given approval to it in principle?

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I have given approval in principle, but I am afraid that such approval, by itself, does not determine the priority of any particular project. Unfortunately, there are a number of other desirable projects with a higher priority than this one, which contains a large element of replacement rather than new building to meet, for example, expanding population, which is often the problem in other parts of the country.

Pout Box

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made on extending the pout box.

The Under Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I share the right hon. Gentleman's wish to see the pout box extended northwards to 61°N, and we have made this clear to the European Commission. We now await the outcome of a study by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which may provide the basis for a new measure.

Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, which follows representations made to him at a meeting with the Orkney and Shetland representatives. Can he give any indication of the timing, because the matter is becoming urgent? When does he expect to make further progress?

Mr. Brown: A report from the working group is with the international council at the moment. As soon as that is submitted to the European Commission we

shall be able to decide whether there are grounds for pressing our claim.

Mr. Sproat: Does the Minister accept that the extension of the pout box is only one measure being urged on the Government by the fishing industry? Will he say what immediate and, if necessary, unilateral action the Government propose to take to ensure that only one size of net is carried on one vessel in United Kingdom waters?

Mr. Brown: That does not arise out of this question. As the hon. Member knows, it is only one of a number of aspects of conservation measures which we will be pursuing at the appropriate time.

Oil Pollution (Emergency Services)

Mr. Watt: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the emergency services available in Scotland to deal with tanker collisions and oil spillages round the entire Scottish coast.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: The arrangements for dealing with oil spills at sea or on the shore, whether they come from tanker collisions or from any other source, are kept under constant review. In the context of this on-going review, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the announcement about oil pollution measures made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade on 23 February.

Mr. Watt: Does the Minister agree that there are not sufficient tugs of sufficient size in the area to pull 300,000-ton tankers should they get stranded? Some of these tugs are as much as 36 hours steaming time away, on the Continent. A great deal of damage can be done to areas around our coasts if proper emergency facilities are not available. Will the Minister show some sense of urgency and go to the areas concerned, particularly Shetland, to see the tremendous damage being done to areas by oil pollution of all kinds?

Mr. MacKenzie: As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we are prepared to keep an open mind on this whole issue. Tomorrow, a working group, under Department of Trade leadership, is due to meet in Aberdeen primarily to consider safety of navigation around the Shetlands. Orkney Islands


Council will participate, and tanker routes throughout Scotland, including The Minch, will be discussed. The Scottish Office will also be represented. Next Monday there is to be a seminar, which is widely known about, to discuss the whole question of pollution by oil around our coasts. I hope to be taking part, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade

Dr. Bray: Will the Minister accept that, as the Clyde pilots have pointed out, it is unnecessary for the supertankers to go through The Minch at all? By going through The Minch they are subject to unnecessary hazards and are a tremendous threat to a valuable coastline. Will he consider banning tankers from that area?

Mr. MacKenzie: As I indicated in my previous response, this is a matter which will be discussed by the working party which meets in Aberdeen tomorrow. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's views will be taken into account during those considerations.

Mr. Grimond: I have been in correspondence with Ministers on numerous matters relating to pollution. Will the Scottish Office make a special effort in one direction? There are still hundreds, possibly thousands, of wretched sheep in the Shetlands covered in thick black oil. With the lambing season coming on, this is a serious situation. If the Scottish Office can do anything to find ways to clean the sheep, such a move will be a great help.

Mr. MacKenzie: I know of the representations made by the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend is writing to the right hon. Gentleman about some of these matters today. My right hon. Friend will also be writing to him at the earliest opportunity about other associated matters. My right hon. Friend will in due course respond in correspondence on this issue of the sheep.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a list recently published by Lloyd's indicating that 1,400,000 tons of shipping were lost at sea last year? That is an increase of almost 40 per cent. on the previous year. Many of the losses were tankers. By contacting Lloyd's my right hon. Friend would, I am sure, gain some practical indication of how this matter can be com-

bated The problem is becoming worse. In addition to the losses at sea, there was the Bantry Bay explosion—the sort of thing that could occur in other parts of the country. Will my right hon. Friend get in touch with Lloyd's to obtain some practical information on how incidents can be prevented?

Mr. MacKenzie: The question that my hon. Friend raises is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I assure him that his views will be conveyed to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware that some of the trouble seems to have been caused by the unauthorised discharge of oil by tankers in Scottish waters? Will he contact his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in order to step up the patrolling of areas where tankers are likely to be working, at least as a deterrent against this most objectionable practice?

Mr. MacKenzie: Just before I came to the House today I discussed this matter with my colleagues at the Department of Trade. I have been assured that all aircraft flying over the area most affected are obliged to report any incidents. We can be assured on that matter. There is certainly a difficulty about people dumping stuff that ought not to be dumped. I stress that it is illegal. If we catch these people, which is always a problem, they will certainly be punished.

Kirktons Primary School, Arbroath

Mr. Welsh: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a definite starting date for the proposed Kirktons primary school in Arbroath; and what provision he is making to ensure that this necessary project is expedited.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): It is for Tayside regional council to decide when and if this proposed project should go ahead. On present information it cannot be regarded as a project required to provide extra school places, which means that resources would have to be found from the general allowance for school improvement and replacement work in the council's capital allocations.

Mr. Welsh: That is a very disappointing answer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware


that children in Kirktons are being scattered into other areas because of poor planning by Tayside regional council? Is he aware that many of these children will later attend Arbroath high school, which has atrocious accommodation problems? Will he take action to bestir Tayside regional council into carrying out this long-overdue project?

Mr. McElhone: The position in Arbroath is that the number of places in the six non-denominational primary schools is 3,891. The number of pupils in February 1978 was 2,818. In other words, there are 1,000 spare places in Arbroath at primary level. If a school is built there will be 1,500 spare places—50 per cent. more than are needed. That is the difficulty. If the Tayside region wants to make that a priority, it has sufficient capital allocations from my Department to carry out the work.

Royal High School, Edinburgh

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current rateable value of the Assembly building in Edinburgh.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave him on 8 March.

Mr. Gow: As £2·75 million has already been spent on the construction and fitting-out work of the Assembly building, and as it is contemplated that another £1 million will be spent on it, is it not clear that the rateable value will be very high? Will the Minister tell the House what proposals he has to dispose of the building now that it is clear that no Assemblymen will ever sit in it?

Mr. Ewing: As my right hon. Friend explained, Crown property does not have a rateable value. The hon. Gentleman has obviously not read the answer that he received. An arrangement is reached between the Treasury valuer and the local authority assessor, an ex gratia payment is made from one authority to the other and subsequently a valuation appears on the valuation roll.
As regards the disposal of the Royal high school, I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, of all people, should wish to pre-empt a decision of the House

of Commons on the future of the Scotland Act by talking in this way.

Mr. Sillars: Is not the reason for the question mark over the Assembly being filled that the Cabinet has a difficulty in that it is afraid to table the Assembly motion as a vote of confidence because about 40 Labour Back Benchers would rather bring down the Government than honour the fact that the"Yes"side won in the referendum?

Mr. Ewing: I think that it is true to say that all Cabinets have difficulties of one kind or another. I am sure that the present Cabinet is no exception.
As I said when I appeared on radio with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), I am astonished at his new-found enthusiasm for a measure which caused him to leave our ranks. However, I pay tribute to the loyal support that I have received from those of my hon. Friends who support devolution. No doubt the Government will come to a decision on this matter at some subsequent date.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In any advice which my hon. Friend gives to the Cabinet, will he take into account the very large number of Scottish people who voted"No "? Will he further take into account the deliberate attempt by the Scottish National Party and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) to depress the"No"vote by saying that if people did not vote they would be counted as having voted"No "? Should we not perhaps for once take them at their word?

Mr. Ewing: On the question of people who did not vote being counted as having voted"No ", I understand that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) did not vote because of some error or mistake on her part. I should hesitate to hazard a guess that she intended to vote"No ". No doubt my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet will take into account everything said by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not presumptuous of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) to talk about people voting"No ", when he does net have a vote in Scotland?

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman wait until after Question Time?

Mr. Robert Hughes: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) is wrong. I have a vote. I voted"No ". Therefore, I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the statement that he made.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, it will give me great pleasure, if I have been misinformed, to withdraw the comment that I made. It would give me even greater pleasure if the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said enough. He has withdrawn his comment.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: How can the Minister justify further expenditure on the proposed Assembly building? Whatever the future for devolution, Ministers have no authority to assume that, for example, the 158 closed-circuit television sets at present being installed at a reported cost of £250,000 will ever be required. [HON. MEMBERS:"Reading."] Is the Minister aware that his dogged determination to spend more money on this building might be admirable if he were using his own money, but that this expenditure is a flagrant misuse of public funds?

Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friends indicated that the hon. Gentleman was reading. If so, he did not read very well. The contracted expenditure will take place, because contracts are contracts, but no further contracts will be placed for the balance of the expenditure—in other words, the difference between the £3·75 million which was allowed for by the House of Commons and, not the £2·75 million mentioned by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), but the £2·68 million which has already been spent.

Rents

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will use his reserve powers to limit rent increases under section 15 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: My right hon. Friend will use his powers whenever he considers that any particular increases would impose an unduly heavy burden on tenants. He has decided to use them in order to restrict the increase proposed by Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council.

Mr. Canavan: I thank my hon. Friend for stopping Provost Murray from behaving like a medieval landlord by imposing savage increases of 40 per cent. on the tenants of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district, but will he give some indication of the kind of limitation that he has in mind, bearing in mind that this time last year the Government promised that rent increases, if necessary, should be in line with the average increase in earnings?

Mr. Brown: I never attempt to compete with the eloquence of my hon. Friend in his public criticisms. I hope that he will continue to direct them to Provost Murray and not to me.
We are taking £12 off the average increase for each house, which is £12 off the increase for each tenant.

Mrs. Bain: While being sure that Provost Murray will listen to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) more readily than he will to certain members of his own party, may I ask the Minister to look carefully at the comparison between district council house rents in the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district and those for comparable houses owned by the Government-controlled SSHA and Cumbernauld Development Corporation in the area? If he does, he will find that the rent levels there are substantially higher than district council rents.

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Lady, whom I have never noticed as being much of an expert on housing—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh! "] The hon. Lady specialises in other subjects and interests. She will recollect—or perhaps someone could advise her—that, in the Green Paper, when we talk about local contributions rising in line with earnings, we take local contributions to include rents and rates. Unfortunately, new towns do not have a rate fund contribution, nor does the SSHA.

Mr. Lambie: How can my hon. Friend justify this decision today in regard to


the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council when his right hon. Friend has agreed to increases of over £100 per year—a 50 per cent. increase—by the SNP-controlled Cunninghame district council? Surely he must reconsider that decision as well.

Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, we regret the circumstances which made it necessary to allow increases—

Mr. Lambie: What circumstances?

Mr. Brown: I have already explained them. We regret the circumstances which made it almost inevitable that we had to approve higher increases than we would have wished. I should point out that the average increases allowed in Cunninghame are about the same as we have allowed for Kilsyth and Cumbernauld.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister accept that, as the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) said, there is a feeling of injustice in areas where tenants of the SSHA and new town houses and district council tenants live in comparable houses but pay different rents?
Bearing in mind the action that has been taken on percentage increases, will the hon. Gentleman address his mind to the hardship that will be caused to every council tenant and owner-occupier in Scotland if there are to be rate increases of over 15 per cent. this year?

Mr. Brown: That is an omnibus question. I shall stick to the part that is relevant. As I have explained, there is no rate fund contribution to the SSHA and new towns, where the deficits are wholly funded by the Government. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) on behalf of the Opposition, is saying that he will require a rate fund contribution from local authorities to both these organisations, I am happy to hear it.

Local Authorities (Housing Expenditure)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total capital expenditure being allocated for housing to local authorities in 1979–80.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Provisional allocations amounting to £248 million, based on November 1978 prices, were given to local authorities on 14 February. These

will be updated to 1979–80 prices at the end of March.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that Kirkcaldy district council's share of that allocation will allow it to complete only about 50 per cent. of its projected housing in this financial year? Will he therefore give an assurance that the Glebe Park development, which he visited last November, will not be delayed by the lack of financial provision?

Mr. Brown: I can give a general assurance that, as has happened this year, there will be supplementary allowances within the total amount in the kitty. I have no reason to doubt that Kirkcaldy will get the same sympathetic consideration that other authorities have received, since the authority is proceeding with a worthwhile improvement scheme.

Mr. Younger: Will the Minister confirm that last year, under a Labour Government, housing completions in Scotland were the lowest since 1951? Will he tell us how that ties in with the pledge given by the Labour Party at the last general election that it would reverse the disastrous rundown in house building?

Mr. Brown: That does not arise out of the question. There is no restriction on new house building in Scotland. It is now being shown that local authorities, when submitting housing plans, want to switch more of their resources to modernisation and improvement. The figures are available for anybody to see. If any hon. Members wants to submit, through his authority, a scheme for new house building it will be given sympathetic consideration.

Dr. Bray: Can my hon. Friend say whether the housing plans submitted by district councils have been fully examined by his Department? Can he give an assurance that the continuity of housing modernisation—which is so necessary and which is embodied in these plans—will be honoured by his Department in future?

Mr. Brown: Yes, in general terms I can give that assurance. What I am trying to say, if I have not made it clear already, is that the bids made by local authorities collectively far outweigh anything that we have in the kitty, or the


total amount that they spend in a year. That is the argument which I imagine will go on whether or not I am in this job, and whatever Government are in power.

Nursery Education

Mrs. Bain: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the current level of expenditure on the provision of nursery education.

Mr. McElhone: In recent years education authorities have not been able to expand nursery education as rapidly as I would have wished. The Government remain committed to the expansion of nursery education and the recent White Paper on public expenditure, Cmnd. 7439, made plain that resources will be made available for this purpose.

Mrs. Bain: Is the Minister satisfied that all the regional authorities concerned are using the resources allocated to them for nursery education expansion, since the reply he gave to me earlier this year indicates that not all the resources are being taken up by authorities? What consideration is being given to the use of empty classrooms in primary schools by changing them into nursery wings attached to the schools?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Lady makes two fair points. She asks whether local authorities at regional level are using all the money available for nursery education. A number of them have underspent on nursery education. This is largely due to staffing ratios, which are quite high in these establishments. I hope that local authorities will take very seriously the suggestion about using spare primary school accommodation. There has been a substantial drop in the number of primary schoolchildren in many areas, which means that there is spare accommodation. It is there to be used, with suitable adaptations. That would be better than waiting for purpose-built nursery schools. I hope that this message will go to local authorities.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my hon. Friend investigate how many specially built nursery places are not being used and make that the first priority for the future?

Mr. McElhone: It is true that because of a drop in the number of births there

are many spare places in nursery schools. But unfortunately this is not spread evenly over the regions. I hope that local authorities will advertise and ensure that families in greatest need are encouraged to use the spare places. I hope also that local authorities will consider the concept, which I have been pushing, of children's centres which give whole-day coverage for mothers with children under five, one-parent families and working mothers.

Ambulances

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ambulances equipped with four-wheel drive are available for use in Scotland; and if he is satisfied that this number is sufficient to afford adequate cover in wintry conditions.

Mr. Harry Ewing: We have 54 four-wheel drive ambulances available and they afford adequate cover.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there were many occasions during the first two months of this year when many roads were passable only by four-wheel drive vehicles? Is he really satisfied that the number is adequate?

Mr. Ewing: We are advised on this matter by the Scottish ambulance service, and it is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that these vehicles are at their best in bad weather conditions and on long journeys over class B roads. The Scottish ambulance service is satisfied that the 54 vehicles available to it at the moment are adequate to meet its needs.

Mr. Watt: Does the Minister realise that the best way to avoid long journeys on dangerous roads is to stop the closure of many of our local hospitals?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is stretching the question.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that it might not matter how many four-wheel drive ambulances there are in Scotland shortly if the threat by the National Union of Public Employees in Scotland, which we have heard about today, is carried out? That will virtually close all Scottish hospitals this week. Can he assure the House that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rule applies to the Front Bench as to the Back


Benches. The hon. Member is also stretching the question.

Farm Incomes

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the decline in Scottish farming incomes during 1978.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The return to more normal potato prices is the main cause of the decline in farming incomes in the year ending March 1978. A general improvement is forecast for 1978–79.

Mr. Henderson: Is not the hon. Gentleman glossing over the fact that there has been a decrease of 33 per cent. in farm incomes in Scotland in the last year? Can he tell us what measures he intends to take to ensure that that is made up in the coming year? Farmers are getting a bit fed up with the Government's"jam tomorrow"policy.

Mr. Brown: I am not glossing over anything. I attended the annual general meeting of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland on Friday, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not allowed to gloss over anything. I give the House the assurance that we expect a rise in incomes for the year ending 1979. I readily concede that the hard winter may, perhaps, influence that and that there are other factors that do not give any ground for optimism or complacency. But, to be realistic, the farmers will not starve.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will my hon Friend take all possible steps to help the hard-pressed hill and marginal farmers? Will he bear in mind that a number of the perhaps less hard-pressed lowland farmers in my constituency managed to find enough spare income to raise £7,500 for the Tory Party two weeks ago?

Mr. Brown: I am glad to say that there are enough intelligent electors in Berwick and East Lothian to return a Labour Member. I am sure that that will continue. We made a specific announcement that we were putting more than £1 million into farming in the hill areas in Scotland where there is the greatest need to supplement incomes.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Surely the hon. Gentleman, after his meeting with the Scottish NFU last Friday, can be in no

doubt about the genuine concern amongst farmers in the hill and upland areas. Is he aware of the genuine concern among cattle producers at the inflation in costs and their vulnerability to market prices? Is he prepared to do more to help this hard-pressed sector of Scottish agriculture?

Mr. Brown: I share the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and I have already said that we have applied aid to the areas of greatest need. The hon. Gentleman knows that the production of cattle is a risky business, and I am assuming that the supporters of private enterprise do not want to take away all the initiatives that should be open to the producers. Nevertheless, there is a real concern, which I have recognised. We certainly shall not see the hill farmers lost.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister assure us that all the agriculture Ministers will fight to prevent the implementation of the iniquitous EEC milk levy, which is designed to perpetuate the existence of small inefficient farmers by penalising efficient British farmers? We would be glad of that assurance.

Mr. Brown: Yes, I can give that assurance, but I do not want to pre-empt anything that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may say later.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister comment further on the special problems facing Scotland's hill farmers because of harsh winter conditions and high interest rates? Does he accept that the delay in announcing the hill livestock compensatory allowances was disgraceful? What further steps is he prepared to take to help hill farmers?

Mr. Brown: The delay was not disgraceful. The reasons were explained to the NFU of Scotland and I think that it accepted them. But as always when we are handing out money, there will be people who say that it is not enough.

Mr. Younger: Does the Minister agree that the more or less unanimous view of those at the conference which he attended was that the announcement that he made to hill farmers was inadequate to deal with the serious escalation in costs and the Government's high interest rates? Was he not made aware that what is at


stake is the very viability of many of the marginal hill farms in this country, unless he does something more to help them?

Mr. Brown: I assumed that most of the Labour farmers were at Perth and not at Peebles on Friday. Perhaps the warmth of the reception that some of the farmers gave me had political overtones. There are always variations in an industry which is as diverse as agriculture. But, overall, Scottish farmers are doing reasonably well. I do not put it any higher than that.

Fishing Fleet

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the future structure of the Scottish fishing fleet; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Millan: Along with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I am considering the structure of the industry, but it is too soon for any statement to be made.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's view that it is impossible to come to a conclusion in advance of the final negotiations on the common fisheries policy. However, does he accept that there is great uncertainty in the industry about its future structure and building plans? Will he give some indication of the programme that he envisages for the renegotiation of the CFP? When does he expect that to come to some conclusion that will enable the industry to undertake proper long-term planning?

Mr. Millan: Unfortunately, it is difficult to be categorical about the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Progress in the negotiations on the common fisheries policy has been disappointingly slow, as he knows. However, we are not leaving consideration of the structure of the industry to a final conclusion of the CFP. We are considering the proposals of a catching industry working group which was chaired by the White Fish Authority and which has recently sent proposals to the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — R. W. McCONNACHIE v. DANCKARTS WOODWORKING MACHINERY LIMITED

Mr. Cryer: asked the Lord Advocate if he will make a statement on the decision in the case of R. W. McConnachie v. Danckarts Woodworking Machinery Ltd.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): The defects giving rise to the charges in the case were identified while the machinery in question was being tested in the course of installation. The court held that, in the circumstances, the machinery was not being used within the meaning of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Accordingly no offences had occurred.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend express concern about that decision? Is not the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act designed to improve and maintain safety? Is not the Lord Advocate worried that such a decision may breach the absolute provisions of section 14 of the Factories Act 1961? Has he any recommendations to make to the Health and Safety Commission to see that this possible loophope is stopped up and to ensure that existing safety standards are maintained?

The Lord Advocate: I agree that it is a matter of concern to discover that this section does not appear to apply to the particular case. My view is that the import of machinery which does not comply with United Kingdom safety standards should be deplored.
The case puts in question whether our safety legislation should be strengthened to prevent such machinery from being imported, sold or installed. I shall draw this matter to the attention of my ministerial colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions — COURTS (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Advocate whether he will make a statement about the effects on his Department of recent industrial action by court employees.

The Lord Advocate: Summary trials are proceeding in the district courts and normal trials in about a quarter of the


sheriff courts. No other prosecutions are proceeding at present. It is not possible to estimate how long these will be delayed.

Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend condemn yesterday's wild statements by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), whose vicious attacks on the trade union movement could help to inflame the situation? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the hon. and learned Member seems to forget that the court workers would probably return to work tomorrow if they received the same fat wage packet as the hon. and learned Member received through membership of that well known closed shop, the Faculty of Advocates?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) is not in his place. However, the colourful and intemperate language that he used yesterday did not contribute to a peaceful settlement of this industrial dispute. The hon. and learned Member sought to put the blame firmly on the Government. That was quite misplaced. To that extent I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). If any doctrine is responsible for the strike in the Scottish courts, it is the doctrine of free collective bargaining, which is different from the responsible collective bargaining in which the Government believe.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is not the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) being outrageous? Does the Lord Advocate agree that the speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) was one of the best that we have heard in the Commons? It resulted in the Government taking action which they should have taken a fortnight ago. Does the Lord Advocate agree that part of the major problem in industrial relations is that the Government do not use common sense and reason but resort only to the misuse of irresponsible power?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member is being indignant. I do not agree with him. If he feels so strongly about this matter he should have arranged to take part in the debate yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRUG ABUSE

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Lord Advocate if he is satisfied with the adequacy of the law relating to drug abuse in Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: A review is currently taking place covering the classification of drugs and the penalties for drug offences. The adequacy of the existing law will be considered in light of that review.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Lord Advocate accept my thanks for the inquiry? Is he aware that in Tayside drug abuse has risen threefold in the last year? Does he agree that the nature of the law on drugs and the penalties should be given attention?

The Lord Advocate: I am aware of the situation in Tayside. Similar problems exist in other parts of the country. I take note of the anxiety expressed by hon. Members here and in the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — COURT OF SESSION AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Lord Advocate when next he intends to visit the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary.

The Lord Advocate: I am in regular contact with both the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Lord Advocate agree, in retrospect, that it would have been better if the emergency legislation to deal with the strike in the courts had been introduced at the beginning of the emergency some weeks ago rather than at this belated date? In particular, does the Lord Advocate feel that the proposals to allow judges to appoint other persons to do the work normally done by sheriff clerks and clerks of court would be having an effect now if the Government had been prepared to act when the emergency began?

The Lord Advocate: Deciding whether to introduce emergency legislation is always a difficult responsibility for any Government. They must consider the


situation from time to time. The hon. Member should remember that to introduce emergency leglislation before an emergency has come about is a serious step for any Government to take.
The hon. Member is anticipating the publication of the emergency Bill, which is not due to take place until tomorrow. In the delicate situation in which all of us are anxious to see the courts resume work it is not right to anticipate the provisions of the Bill or how it is proposed they will be carried out.

Mr. Dewar: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that although many of us feel that the strike by court workers is premature, it should be recorded that this is the first time that such a strike has taken place? Will my right hon. and learned Friend distance himself from the surprising suggestion made by many Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), that the withdrawal of labour by such workers should be made illegal?

The Lord Advocate: I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be strange if one group of employees were excluded from the general right of peaceful picketing and the general right to withdraw labour. The doctrine that the end justifies the means is one which all democrats would reject. My hon. Friend may agree, or disagree, with that. Those who are concerned with the administration of justice and are involved in the present strike must ask themselves whether it can ever be right

to bring the courts of justice to a halt in the name of just remuneration for themselves.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will the Lord Advocate confirm that the purpose of his legislation is to protect the rights and freedoms of every British citizen under the law and to ensure that the administration of justice shall continue?

The Lord Advocate: I can give that assurance.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider his answer a little and emphasise that those who are now on strike in the courts have never been on strike before? Does he agree that the strike is symptomatic of the deep grievance that they feel? Will he make it clear that those who condemn the strike as being irresponsible do nothing to contribute towards peace in this sphere of employment?

The Lord Advocate: That is a fair point. I agree that this action represents a deep feeling of grievance. But I make a qualification. Those who are directly involved in the administration of justice in Scotland constitute a small minority of those involved in the strike. One must look at the responsibility of those who, on a United Kingdom basis, are responsible for bringing the courts of justice in Scotland virtually to a standstill.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL (PARIS MEETING)

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): Mr. Speaker, I will, with permission, report to the House on the meeting of the European Council in Paris, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 12 and 13 March.
The Council's decisions and discussions were focused mainly on European aspects of such issues as economic development, the problem of unemployment, energy, the future of the common agricultural policy and the proper use of the Community's resources.
As regards unemployment and social policy, it is the Council's view that quite apart from the beneficial effects that would result from faster economic growth, specific measures are also needed to reduce unemployment. Ministers of Labour and Social Affairs were asked to work closely with trade unions and employers in further co-ordinated action in such matters as youth employment and training schemes, limitation of overtime, vocational training for women, social measures to assist workers in industries in difficulty such as iron and steel, earlier retirement and work-sharing. They were asked to report on these matters to the next Council meeting.
On energy supplies and use, the Council adopted the objective of a reduction in 1979 Community oil consumption of about 25 million tonnes, that is, about 5 per cent. below present forecasts, by such methods as encouraging conservation, making the best use of hydrocarbon and coal reserves and strengthening production of electricity from nuclear sources whenever conditions permit.
Arising from a report by the Commission, I asked that Finance Ministers should examine the proposition that economic convergence between member States would be strengthened if their net contributions to the budget were more closely related to some objective criteria. In this connection, Heads of Government have asked Ministers of Finance to examine in depth how all the policies of the Community, taken as a whole, could be developed to make a greater contribu-

tion to achieving economic convergence and to make a report to the next Council.
These discussions on energy, employment and the social situation in the Community led me to put forward the view that the Community needed to make a reassessment of its own social and economic priorities, and that there was room for considerable improvement in the way the Community allocates its expenditure, especially as this expenditure will, within the next few years, reach the limit of the resources available to the Community. This called for speedy action to reduce wasteful and unnecessary expenditure on accumulating food surpluses through agricultural aid, which can then be disposed of only at considerable loss and which disturb our trade relations with other countries.
I urged the Community, in the interest of a healthy development, to correct its priorities and, while ensuring a healthy agriculture, to devote more attention and resources to the acute problems that have shown themselves in parts of European industry and in the social decline of the centres of some European cities.
The subsequent discussion on the common agricultural policy was the most realistic that I have taken part in. Heads of Government showed a welcome recognition that the existence of surpluses and the costs involved could not be justified. It was agreed that the existence of these market imbalances in agriculture required, in the wording used at such meetings,
 a prices policy appropriate to this situation ".

Mr. Teddy Taylor: What does that mean?

The Prime Minister: I made it clear that for the United Kingdom this wording meant that we should not agree to increases in common prices for products in surplus at forthcoming meetings of Agriculture Ministers. I am sure that that was clear to them, as it will be clear even to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor).
In summary, I can report to the House that the validity of the arguments advanced by British Ministers on some of these issues, over a long period, is being increasingly recognised. The next step will be for all member States to take the necessary action.

Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister agree with the conclusion of some commentators this morning that it was a disappointing summit, and that that disappointment was reflected both in the communique and in the statement that the right hon. Gentleman made? Does he agree that it would be more to Britain's advantage if he and his colleagues dropped their abrasive and critical attitude towards our Common Market partners and behaved genuinely as partners, in which case we might get some of the problems solved?
May I put three particular points to the Prime Minister? First, on the budget and the common agricultural policy, does he recall that when he renegotiated these matters in 1975 and commended them to the British people as a whole, he did so on the basis that he had largely solved the budget problems and that Britain would in future pay less? What hapened to his estimate then? Was it wrong? What has happened after four years of constant criticism?
Why, after that constant criticism, if he has done well in the Common Market, is Britain still paying more? Would it not be better if, instead of that criticism, he were more co-operative?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the White Paper he indicated that he had gone a long way towards securing a better balance between supply and demand of common agricultural policy products? There is a tremendous gap between what he says and what has happened as a result of our negotiations with the Common Market. What reforms has the right hon. Gentleman brought about, as distinct from the regular statements and communiques that we receive at intervals?
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman made no statement about the future of fisheries policy, a subject upon which Britain has perhaps the best case of all for most favourable treatment Will he give us some indication about that?
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that it was mainly an economic summit. As he will know, there are serious problems affecting a close neighbour of the Common Market—namely, Turkey. America and Germany were to give Turkey valuable financial assistance. There seems to be some delay. Was Turkey discussed? Has he anything

to say on that? It is a very urgent matter. If anything happens to Turkey, it will be highly damaging to the whole of the Western alliance.

The Prime Minister: The budget problem is one that has taken up much time. That is because we are trying to get the Community to recognise that the principle of capacity to pay on one's net resources is as good for external use as it is in our internal affairs. At present our contributions are made on the basis that we happen to be a large food importer. When the discussions took place in 1975 we received assurances that surpluses would not be allowed to build up. However, surpluses have been built up, and it is only now that the Community seems ready to face the fact that when it reaches the ceiling of its resources it will no longer be able to pursue this rake's progress. Apart from the arguments that we are advancing, the sheer facts, as the President of the Commission said yesterday, can cause the policy to collapse under its own weight. We have valuable allies in the Community.
As to whether the budgetary problem should have been solved in 1975, there was a mechanism that helped us. That was produced in Dublin, where I was present with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). That mechanism is of some assistance and, indeed, may be brought into use in 1979.
Since those days when the Conservative Party was in power, through a combination of circumstances, including North Sea oil and our increasing exports, we have passed from the balance of payments deficit that we inherited to the substantial balance of payments surplus that is now developing. One of the conditions of the Dublin mechanism was that the country concerned should be in balance of payments deficit. Therefore, for that reason, that has not operated.
The Agriculture Ministers are discussing fisheries policy. It is not thought appropriate by us that we should do so at this time, as the discussions are not at the stage where Heads of Government can resolve the issue. The House knows of the attitude taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Hon Members may rely upon him to be pretty sturdy about these matters.
The question of Turkey, and aid to Turkey, was discussed informally among Heads of Government after the formal sessions had been concluded. I hope that additional assistance may be given to Turkey, but I am not able to disclose what it is at the moment.
As to the right hon. Lady's general conclusion, I do not think that she should accept what the commentators say about this matter. I am sure that she must have more reliable sources of information than the commentators, who, unless there is a tremendous row, always say that every summit is disappointing. The summit was not disappointing to Britain, because, for the first time, the arguments that we advanced seemed to have gone home. We did not have to adopt an abrasive attitude. We merely had continually to put forward the logical virtue of this case, as we have done year after year. Perhaps it is a pity that that was not done when the Conservative Party took us into the Common Market.

Mr. Powell: Can common prices be increased if the United Kingdom does not agree?

The Prime Minister: There is a legal point here, under the treaty. Perhaps I could explain it with some care. The Commission makes price proposals under article 43. The Council decides on such a proposal by a qualified majority. However, under article 149 it can modify a Commission proposal only by a unanimous vote. Thus, provided the Commission does not change its proposal for a price freeze, it would require all nine member States, including the United Kingdom, to force an increase in prices. The right hon. Gentleman has already heard me say what would be the attitude of the United Kingdom on that matter.
If the Commission changed its proposals, the United Kingdom would continue to oppose any increases and discussion would have to continue until an agreement satisfactory to all member States, including the United Kingdom, could be found.

Mr. David Steel: While, understandably, the need to reform the CAP and the matter of the budget balance attracted most attention out of this Council meeting, does the Prime Minister agree that that tended to overshadow the important

decision that was arrived at on the reduction of energy consumption? Does not that call for a more detailed policy statemen from the Government, as it will affect this country? Should we not debate the matter in the House?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy reported to the House a week or two ago that we were, following the decisions taken at the International Energy Agency, putting forward proposals for further conservation. We have indeed already introduced some, including, for example, financial assistance to householders to insulate their lofts. At the other end of the scale we are coming forward with proposals for burning more coal in power stations in place of oil. I am satisfied that the United Kingdom will be able to meet its share of the target of a reduction of about 5 per cent.

Mr. Jay: In contrast to the humbug that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend note that his speech on the EEC budget and the CAP was so good that it deserves to be followed up by equally resolute action?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does the Prime Minister recall that he was a prominent member of the Government who renegotiated the terms of entry? Does not his statement today suggest that he and his Government had it wrong when they renegotiated those terms? Secondly, is the Prime Minister not somewhat anxious that his present attitude is so popular with those who opposed entry altogether?

The Prime Minister: I hope to win over those who opposed entry altogether to the belief that a community of interest and working together are better for us than a Britain in isolation. The adoption of a critical posture—where it is not only in Britain's interest, as this is, but in the interests of the healthy development of the Community—is the best way to get the people of Britain and those totally opposed to entry to see the virtues of this. That policy I have always taken. I shall continue to do so.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of this country are wholeheartedly behind the Government's determination to resist any increase


in farm prices until surpluses have disappeared? Is he aware that officials of the Community are hanging on to the hope that a Conservative Government would be more pliant? Do not the right hon. Lady's remarks this afternoon prove them right? Will the people take warning before it is too late?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend had a great friend in Mr. Aneurin Bevan. She will recall his famous phrase to this effect:"Why peer into the crystal ball when you can read the book?"Why should the British people take any more warnings about the future when they can see what happened on the last occasion when the Tory Government had responsibility for our affairs?

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Prime Minister aware that the attitude taken at this meeting meets with the approval of the majority of the population of the United Kingdom and that the United Kingdom negotiators cannot be abrasive enough? Assuming the return of a Labour Government after the election, will he say whether this policy will continue after that date? Is he aware that the answer to all these problems is the bringing forward of the signing of the inevitable document of withdrawal?

The Prime Minister: I agree that the question how these policies develop is of great importance. The arguments that have now gone home to some of our Common Market colleagues are the growth of unemployment in their countries, the sight that they have of industrial difficulties, with industries that are running down, and the fact that some of the great towns and cities of Europe—I shall not name any of them—are infected with some of the same social tensions and problems as we have seen to a lesser degree in our country. They are ripe for the argument that it is time to change the priorities and devote more attention to these matters that cause unemployment.
It was probably right 20 years ago, when agriculture was in a fairly depressed state, to spend a great deal of time and attention on the restructuring of agriculture. Even now it is the Government's intention to attack not the fundamental objectives of the agriculture policy but its excesses, which have brought the policy into disrepute.

Mr. Spearing: As the Prime Minister agreed with the points so cogently put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), does not that show that the protection of the British people should not rest alone in Governments but that there is merit in the protection of the British people by the powers of this House in the matter of EEC policies?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Indeed, my hon. Friend has been most assiduous in protecting the British people according to his attitude in these matters. Ministers stand here only by virtue of the fact that they secure the support of the House of Commons. When they do not have that support, they no longer stand here.

Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) referred to the terms renegotiated in Dublin. Is it not logical to suppose that everyone who supported the"Yes"campaign agreed, presumably, with the renegotiated terms?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is really too young a soldier in this battle to continue to fight all these hoary old campaigns, and I urge him to look ahead.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are millions of people in this country who agree that in his speech in Paris on Monday he spoke for the national interest, for the interest of the taxpayer and the consumer, in a way in which no Tory spokesman could possibly speak, as is evidenced by the contribution made by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House of Commons will not for ever sanction the paying of money by the British taxpayer to inefficient farmers on the Continent, to the cold storage business in Europe, or to anything else, unless we see an adequate return for the United Kingdom?
Will my right hon. Friend give a firm assurance that although we have these criticisms of the EEC we have problems that we are incapable of solving by ourselves, and that therefore we must fight for the solution of these problems within a wide international context?

The Prime Minister: I am certain that the House of Commons would not be willing to increase our contributions beyond the present limits unless these very important reforms were introduced. Indeed, the present Government would not put forward such a recommendation to the House unless these reforms were achieved. We can do it here by vote. Other Governments may find institutional difficulties. This may in itself prevent an increase in the funds allocated to the Community budget. On all counts there is growing pressure to try to get a sensible agriculture policy.
Those who attend these meetings recognise the interdependence of our countries and know that the same kinds of problems afflict us all. The steel problems that we have are repeated in other countries, and so are the shipbuilding problems and the textile problems. There is no doubt that, by a wise application of policies—and without giving too much power, perhaps, to centralised bureaucracies—we can achieve better solutions than we can by acting individually.

Mr. Dykes: Does the Prime Minister agree that the total amount in £ sterling expended on intervention in the CAP is much less than the figure that would now arise if we had retained the old system of direct farm subsidy?
Everyone would agree that the CAP needs modernisation and reconstruction, but is it not a fact that no more fundamental problem arises from that in respect of our membership of the Community? As the right hon. Gentleman said just now, these problems can be solved through the summit machinery and through meetings of the Council of Ministers. Does he agree that no enormous, excessive or insoluble problems still arise?

The Prime Minister: There are no insoluble problems in that sense. What is needed is the will. Frankly, until the meetings on Monday and Tuesday, I had not seen any dawning recognition that the will existed. Now, for the reasons that I have given, I believe that it may exist and that we shall get changes. I have high hopes in that direction.
As to the relative cost of storing surpluses and the old British system of deficiency payments, there are too many imponderables for us to make a calculation

of that sort. We do not know what the level of world prices will be. We do not know what the prices of New Zealand and Australian produce will be. I do not think that it is much use making theoretical calculations of that sort.
What we know is that we are growing food to excess and selling it at a loss at the present time. That has already soured our trading relations with the United States and made for difficulties with Australia and New Zealand. It has prevented Fiji and Mauritius, and some of the West Indian islands, from selling us sugar which they could otherwise have sold more cheaply. There can be no defence of the present system, in my view, and I hope it will soon be corrected.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not rather sad to see the Leader of the Opposition, at a time when the Government are clearly standing up for the interests of the nation, not standing beside the Government in defending those interests?
Arising from the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Batter-sea, North (Mr. Jay), will my right hon. Friend say when action will be taken and whether there is to be a time limit for the making of these fundamental changes?

The Prime Minister: Heads of Government do not reach conclusions on matters relating to agriculture prices. That is a matter for the Agriculture Ministers. They will be meeting in about the last week of this month. My right hon. Friend will be attending the meeting in order to carry out the policy that I am bound to say I have enunciated on many occasions, particularly at the Guildhall last November. This is no sudden conversion on our part. My right hon. Friend will carry out that policy. It will then be for the Agriculture Ministers to come to some conclusion on it. They know our attitude. It is not put forward in an abrasive way. It is critical, certainly, but it is not abrasive. We are allowing the facts to speak for themselves. We are satisfied that what we are doing is in the best interests of the British consumer, of the European consumer, and of a healthy agriculture everywhere.

Sir David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as a farmer, that in relation to overall farm production the margin between surpluses and shortages


is a surprisingly narrow one? Is he further aware that surpluses are generally in the interests of the consumer and that shortages are against the interests of the consumer? Is not the reality of the situation that he dare not risk changes in the agricultural policy for Europe which would or might involve shortages?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. The margins are very narrow. No one complains if, because of nature's bountiful providence, there is a surplus in one year. But it is not nature's bountiful providence that is yielding us a growing and mounting surplus every year. It is a fact that inefficient and part-time farmers are being propped up by prices that are far too high. That is particularly so in some Continental countries. It is not true in this country. If there were a sensible agriculture system in the Community, it would enable British agriculture to expand.

Mr. Fernyhough: Concerning the discussions on Europe's energy supplies, is my right hon. Friend optimistic that it will be possible to get the European countries to substitute British coal for foreign oil? Does he accept that if that were done it would mean a boost to our exports, it would give security to our mining industry, and it would be a fair quid pro quo for our taking Europe's dairy and horticulture products?
Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that the speech he made in Europe at the weekend lifted the hearts of the common people, the ordinary people—as distinct from the extraordinary people—of this country, and that if he continues to advocate such a policy he can call the general election whenever he likes, and he will be sure to win it?

The Prime Minister: As for the use of British coal in Common Market countries, we would be very happy indeed to accommodate them, but it must depend on the prices at which they can buy it. Some of the countries that are now purchasing coal from third countries turn the prices argument upside down. Up to now they have not wanted us to buy food in the cheapest market, although they want to be able to buy coal in the cheapest market. We have to be careful how we deploy that argument.
As for the next election, I am interested that my right hon. Friend's mind is turning in that direction. I hope that he will—

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman is not standing.

The Prime Minister: If he is not standing, he rests easy. I hope to get around to thinking about it some day.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that simply to oppose price increases without at the same time advancing constructive proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy generally is simply a sterile exercise? What proposals is he putting forward in a genuine reforming spirit?

The Prime Minister: There is much merit in what the hon. Gentleman says. It was not for me to deal with this yesterday, because we were discussing the CAP at a rather rarefied level. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made a number of proposals and will continue to do so.

Mr. Gould: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his difficulties hitherto in getting effective action on the reform of the CAP, and on our budgetary contribution, show how dangerous it would be if ever these vital decisions were taken by institutions in which we did not have a veto and in which we were a permanent minority?

The Prime Minister: There is a danger there, but I hope that my hon. Friend has not overlooked the fact that on this issue of achieving a sensible reform of the CAP it is the Commission that has come forward with the proposals, because it is aware of the pressure on its resources. It has been considering the other issues of employment and the social fund and the needs that must be met there. Therefore, institutions can be helpful as well as dangerous.

Mr. Rost: What is it that we have overlooked about this Government's record over the past five years that gives our Prime Minister the authority and credibility to lecture to our more successful partners about economic management and waste of funds?

The Prime Minister: I hope that I do not lecture to our colleagues. I use the simple force of logic and argument to persuade them when we are right, and it looks as though the argument is now winning through.

Mr. Torney: I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the stand that he took in Paris this weekend regarding the CAP. May I have his assurance that he will give support to our Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—who is doing a good job in the Common Market—for a veto, should it become necessary, on the question of farm prices? Further, will he please tell the House how long we must wait and accept being put off by the rest of the Common Market in regard to the CAP, and whether, at some time or other, he will decide that enough is enough and"Out"is the answer?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the answer to my hon. Friend's last question is"No ". I do not think that we have reached that stage, or that it would be good for this country if we did. On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has done sterling work in Brussels. Somehow I thought that my right hon. Friend was supporting me. My hon. Friend can be assured that I shall support my right hon. Friend, too. On the question of a veto, I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to be unreasonable about this. I would hope that it might be possible—because the spirit of conciliation and understanding is apparent—for the Ministers to talk through these matters and reach agreement on them without the need for the use of the ugly word"veto ". That is their task. They must get agreement, and it is far better that they should seek to do so.

Mr. Costain: Is the Prime Minister aware that we on the Opposition Benches could well wonder whether the Prime Minister knows who it is who is supporting him on this issue? During the discussions on energy conservation, did the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the chairman of British Railways had indicated that the building of a Channel tunnel could save oil products? Was this discussed in any form? If it was not, when it comes up for discussion will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the

South-East of England was paralysed for 15 years through lack of decision on the Channel tunnel and that when a decision was made it was subsequently cancelled? Will he ensure that a quick decision is made?

The Prime Minister: I was aware of Sir Peter Parker's new proposal but I cannot say that it was discussed at the European Council meeting yesterday. The hon. Gentleman says that I am not at all sure who is supporting me. I am quite clear that it is not the Opposition. What is more, not only are the Opposition not supporting the Government; they are not even supporting this country's best interests.

Mr. Fitt: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that the 20,000 unemployed people in my constituency and their families, who are living on social security benefits, are completely in support of his attitude of resisting any further increases in the price of food? Will he give an assurance to me and my constituents who are living at such a low level and finding it difficult to exist that he will continue with his opposition before the election, during the election and after the election?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. On the last part of the question, I hope to be here for many years in order to follow this policy. As to the level of common food prices, I have spoken to the President of the Commission about some of the issues in Northern Ireland. If more resources were available it would be possible, through the social fund, to make quite a substantial difference. I think I am right in saying that expenditure on the so-called social fund, which deals with these matters, is about one-tenth of the expenditure on agriculture. This is why I think we have now managed to marry, in a convincing way, these two arguments. The real problems we have to face and solve are those such as exist in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and others in Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fact that all the questions have been on the CAP demonstrates a weakness of the Common Market? Was there any discussion at all, on the economic and development side, in respect of regional policy? Is he aware


that we in the West of Scotland are very concerned about the activities of multinational companies—particularly firms such as Massey Ferguson, which was able to withdraw important production from a development area in Scotland to a non-assisted area in France, leaving the United Kingdom without a manufacturer of combine harvesters? Surely this is where the EEC could be useful if it were doing the kind of thing that we were promised it would do a few years ago.

The Prime Minister: The"social partners "—the term used to describe the trade unions, employers and the Government—are to have a meeting in the latter part of May about some of the matters that my right hon. Friend raised. I know that one of the matters that is under discussion in that Council, or in other Councils, is what general regulations can be applied to movements by multinational companies. I shall see that this matter is drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State for Industry.

Mr. Tim Smith: May I press the Prime Minister further on the question of the best use of coal reserves? Would we not be more likely to make some headway if we were prepared to make some concessions in the negotiations? How can we hope to win any concessions if we are not prepared to make any? Would there not be a better prospect of exporting British coal if we were prepared to concede something in another area of energy policy?

The Prime Minister: I always believe that at the end of a negotiation both sides should feel that they have won. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is correct. However, he might care to suggest to me in what other areas we could make the concessions. Is it in fisheries or energy policy, or should we hand over control of our oil resources to the Community? Is that the intention? It is all very well to state the truisms, but the hon. Gentleman had better come forward with some practical propositions.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he deserves the gratitude not only of this House but of the whole country for the courageous stand that he has taken? More power to

his elbow. What prospect does he think there is of making the more myopic members of the European Economic Community see a little further than their noses?

The Prime Minister: I think that the facts are now being borne in upon the Community as a whole and that the most likely way of getting the changes that we have argued for for some years is on the grounds of logic and interest.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four more hon. Members from each side.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will the Prime Minister be honest with the British people and admit that this is all a bit of ritual dancing, and that there is no hope of reform of the CAP while he remains in office?

The Prime Minister: If that defeatism is typical of the whole of the Conservative Party, heaven save the British people from it.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all his friends who sit behind him appreciate the statement that he has made today? As for the unemployment problems confronting this country, in conjunction with those of the rest of the Community, does he agree that a strong team of all relevant Ministers, including himself as First Lord of the Treasury, should be present to make sure that a real effort is made to overcome unemployment internationally?

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. The next step is for the Secretary of State for Employment, who is spending a lot of time on these matters, to meet with his colleagues during the next month, and then to report back on what further steps can be taken to integrate Community policies in these matters with national policies. This country has already undertaken a substantial programme. Indeed, there was hardly any aspect that was touched on yesterday on which I was not able to say that we have ourselves already taken action, but we are ready to take further action in co-ordination with the other member countries.

Mr. Raison: Does the Prime Minister recall that it was the declared policy of the Labour Government to grow an ever-increasing amount of our own food? Will he now admit that it is because this policy has failed that we are having to pay more into the CAP?

The Prime Minister: No, that is not the case. We are growing more of our own food. We could grow more, because we are among the most efficient European producers of some products. I believe that when we have a sensible policy, and when small farmers in some countries—I shall not name them—are not propped up by the subsidies, there will be a much better future for British agriculture than there has been so far.

Mr. Stoddart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his warning to other EEC Heads of Government that the United Kingdom will not be treated as a milch cow will be warmly welcomed by the British people? Did he also inform his colleagues that the £1,000 million-plus annual contribution that this country makes to the EEC is not only an unfair burden; it prevents the expansion of our economy by about £3,000 million a year, with a consequent reduction in our standard of living and an inhibition on Government opportunities to deal with unemployment?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that the nature of Britain's net contribution to the Common Market is out of proportion to that paid by other Community countries. I think that my hon. Friend is right in saying that I should concentrate, as I did yesterday, upon adjusting the financial mechanisms, but, above all, we must concentrate on ensuring that we can get growth in our own country through a productive economy and through keeping inflation down. It is to that that the industrial strategy and other instruments of policy are directed.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does the Prime Minister admit that the problems of the CAP, which have been known and recognised for a long time, simply cannot deflect us from an overall view of membership of the Community? With regard to his point about the declining manufacturing industries, was the steel industry discussed? Does he agree with the view of the British Steel Corporation and that

of the independent steel producers that at present membership of the Community is saving that industry from a crisis of 1930s proportions?

The Prime Minister: The work of Commissioner Davignon on steel has had some advantages for European steel. I am not, however, certain that it has had the same advantages for Britain. That is a matter for argument. I know that Commissioner Davignon is trying to ensure that there will be a healthy future for European steel as a whole. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about what he has done so far. The fact that nine countries have negotiated has saved the European steel industry as a whole from a much worse crisis. I hope that we shall continue in that way. We have only to look at recent events in France to see the consequences that can ensue, even with the present degree of negotiations that we have.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, contrary to the impression being given by the Conservative Opposition and others, the Government are not isolated in the criticism that they are making of the CAP and the budget? In seeking support from other parts of the Community, will he bear in mind that direct elections are coming up in June, and will he seek support from the European Parliament?

Mr. Molloy: What a waste of money that will be.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend must remember that this is election year. Therefore, he need nt expect fair treatment for the Government, or anything that they do, in a number of Conservative newspapers which are realy right back to their old 1951 standard. I could not say anything much lowe than that about them.

Mr. Whitelaw: What about"Whose finger on the trigger "?

The Prime Minister: That was a year earlier, Willie, and it was not yours, either. As to isolation, that is a bit of newspaper exaggeration, which my hon. Friend should not take too seriously. What I found significant and hopeful was that a number of my colleagues—as these were private discussions it would not be fair to enumerate them—said


that they agreed with the general trend of criticism that the United Kingdom Prime Minister was making on that occasion. Far from our being isolated, there was more agreement with our analysis of the situation, and of the need to reorder our priorities, than I have ever known.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I accept that on this issue there has been some movement towards the United Kingdom's point of view, but does the Prime Minister recall that on one issue—the European monetary system—we are totally isolated? With his new-found penchant for negotiation, when does he expect to join that school?

The Prime Minister: It is just as well for Europe that we did not join, or we might have been dragging them all up—such is the strength of the pound at present. I believe that the European monetary system will have a long-term, healthy and viable life only if there is more convergence in the economies. It is to that that we should be directing our attention and are now doing.

Mr. Flannery: Has my right hon. Friend, by some slim chance, noted the quite evident demoralisation on the Tory Benches as a result of his defence of Britain in his speech yesterday? More importantly, is he aware of the massive and developing ground swell among our people against the Common Market as a result of the utter futilities of the CAP? Does he at least think that at some time, unless this is changed, our people will demand that we come out of the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: I think that the CAP has been a source of great irritation and worse to our people. Therefore, I have no doubt that there is widespread support for the progress that we are making in this particular matter. I think that my hon. Friend is right. It is extraordinary that this afternoon I should be criticised for being abrasive and critical when I am stating an attitude that is founded in logic and based on British interests. But I suppose that we are here seeing the true face of the Conservative Party.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL PAID ENVELOPES

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I handed in to your office this morning a letter that I received and the envelope in which I received it. I understand that I am not alone in having received from a Mr. M. J. Read, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, a letter in a House of Commons official paid envelope. As it is grossly improper for anyone other than Members of Parliament to employ House of Commons official-paid envelopes, which are supplied exclusively for the use of Members on their official business, I would be most grateful if you would investigate how this Mr. Read came to be in possession of House of Commons official-paid stationery and arrange for the cost of the stationery that he acquired to be reimbursed to the appropriate House of Commons account.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell Hyslop) for sending me the information this morning. I am having inquiries made into the whole matter.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 30 MARCH

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Austin Mitchell.
Mr. F. A. Burden
Mr. Leo Abse.

SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN CARS

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the better safety of children in cars by prohibiting the carriage of children under thirteen years of age in the front seat of motor cars, providing for the fitting of rear seat safety belts adjustable for children on all new cars, and facilitating the use of rear seat child safety seats for children under three.
The aim of this simple Bill is to provide for the greater safety of a section of society—our children—who are so easily exposed to danger when travelling in that most lethal of instruments, the motor


car. Its protective mechanisms and interior are designed for adults, not children. The Bill is to protect a section of society all too innocent and unaware of the proper dictates of safety and their own best interests in a motor car. Each year about 2,400 children under the age of 15 are killed or seriously injured when travelling in cars. A further 7,000 are slightly injured. About one out of three preschool children who are injured or killed on our roads are passengers in motor cars. Of these, all too many travel in the front seat. In recent years about 25 children a year have been killed in the front seat of motor cars and about 3,000 injured. That is a terrible toll of accident and injury.
A proportion, and probably a considerable proportion, of these accidents could have been avoided if the proper dictates of safety had been followed. Common sense dictates and research confirms that a child is safer in the back seat of a car. In most common types of accident the front seat passenger is in the greatest danger. He is in the front line in the battle of the roads. In an accident, a child sitting in the front seat is in great danger of being slung against the windscreen or dashboard.
Common sense again dictates and research confirms that a child is better off and safer when properly restrained, whether in a fastened-down carry-cot, a moulded child's safety seat or wearing a seat belt. But it should be emphasised that children are not necessarily safe in an adult seat belt. In a crash, the legs can pull the pelvis forward and under the belt. That is technically called"submarining ". The belt can bite into the softer parts of a child's abdomen causing internal damage. The pelvis of an adult is formed, his feet are on the floor and his knees are often wedged against part of the car, and that prevents such action.
My Bill is based on children being safer in the rear of a car and safer restrained than unrestrained. It bans children under 13 from travelling in the front seat of a car. That age is chosen because of responsibility and physical size. It requires manufacturers to fit rear seat belts, which will be adjustable for children or which can be used with a special support to raise the child sufficiently to prevent pulling underneath the belt. It facilitates the fitting of approved child safety seats by

requiring manufacturers to design seats that will accept, hold and firmly anchor British Standards-approved safety seats. That will bring us into line with the practice in Australia, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland, which all ban children from the front seats of cars.
The Bill will also stop some of the more alarming practices. As Members of Parliament, we do more driving than any sane person should. I sometimes wonder whether I was elected to a seat in this honourable House or in the front of a car. With all that driving, we see many examples of bad practices in cars. Children use the front seat of a car as a trampoline, gymnasium or climbing frame. Mothers sit in the front seats with children or babies on their knees. They might cushion the mothers from impact against the windscreen but would almost certainly be killed or seriously injured in a collision. All these practices are horrifying in the event of a collision, when a child's effective weight is increased up to 15 times by the force of impact. In a collision at 20 m.p.h., even a small child increases in weight to a quarter of a ton. There is no possibility of holding that child back, restraining it, grabbing it or protecting it. Sense and logic underline the case for the Bill.
The libertarian argument may be invoked against the Bill, but it does not apply to children. It is not the basic right of a child to make a considered decision to go head first through a windscreen. My Bill will compel people to do what safety-conscious drivers do already. It is necessary to have a degree of compulsion, and all too few drivers and passengers are aware of the dangers. It is also necessary to put responsibility where it essentially belongs—on the driver. He should ensure that children in his car are carried as passengers in the safest way possible, which can be difficult. Parents have to face arguments with their children as to who will sit in the front seat of the car. The easy way out is to relegate them compulsorily to the back seat.
The Bill will not impose a major extra burden on the police, nor will it produce a wave of prosecutions for a new offence. We are a law-abiding country. Once the measure becomes law, it will remind a driver every time that he has children in his car and every time that he sees a


policeman or police car to provide for the best safety of the children.
I am proposing a measure that is simple, straightforward, and supported by RoSPA and the British Medical Association. It does no more than enforce the dictates of common sense and social responsibility. It will produce an improvement in the death and injury figures for those whose only crime is innocence. It is a small step in the struggle for greater road safety. I hope that the House will support me in giving a First Reading to my proposed Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mrs. Margaret Bain, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Toby Jessel, Dr. Oonagh McDonald, Mr. Roger Moate, Mr. Mike Noble, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Mr. John Sever and Mr. Giles Shaw.

SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN CARS

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Mr. Austin Mitchell accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the better safety of children in cars by prohibiting the carriage of children under thirteen years of age in the front seat of motor cars, providing for the fitting of rear seat safety belts adjustable for children on all new cars, and facilitating the use of rear seat child safety seats for children under three: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 March and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRY BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

INCREASE IN LIMITS ON LOANS, ETC., TO NATIONAL ENTERPRISE BOARD, SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Norman Lamont: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the misprints in amendments Nos. 5 and 6. Perhaps the misprints illustrate the way in which we all talk bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo to each other: nobody notices, and therefore it does not matter. There is a reference in these amendments to an unknown body described as the"Public Sector Earning Limit ". It should be the"Public Sector Economy Unit ". That correction may be helpful to Ministers.
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 1, leave out ' £3,000 ' and insert ' £2,700 '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 2, leave out ' £4,500 ' and insert ' £3,000 '.

Mr. Lamont: The characteristic of our Committee stage on the Bill was that the Government were unable to defeat any of the amendments put forward by the combined Opposition parties. Inevitably, as a result, our proceedings today have a slight air of deja vu—we have more or less a re-run of the Committee stage amendments. One fresh element in today's proceedings is that we all welcome back the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), who was absent from the Committee stage while he was moved to deal with the industrial situation and his right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) substituted for him.
It was evident both on Second Reading and in Committee that there were considerable disagreements between the two sides. The Minister of State was quite consistent in his criticisms of us, and we


have been equally consistent in our views about the National Enterprise Board. We think that the NEB, put in the most optimistic light, is irrelevant to Britain's industrial problems and probably will prove extremely harmful. It is doing nothing to strengthen the competitiveness of British industry. It brings a dimension of politics into British industry and it is a wrong concept. It is wrong to think that there is an industrial structure which a group of politicians or people in Whitehall or Grosvenor Gardens can decide upon as a blueprint for the type of structure that we should have. We also take the view that viable companies can obtain finance from the markets and those that cannot do not deserve it.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Will the hon. Member tell us whether this means that the Conservative Party, if elected in the next general election, will dismantle the NEB?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Member has anticipated my very next words. I am about to outline our policy and attitude towards the NEB.
When he moved the Second Reading of the Bill, the Secretary of State referred to the NEB as the sixth largest group in British industry. What is it sixth in? Is it turnover or employment? It is certainly not profitability. But beyond any question of doubt the NEB now has an important and sizeable allocation of resources, and it is our fear that the way in which it is conducted will lead to gigantic misallocation and waste of public money. Nothing in the NEB's track record so far gives us any cause to revise our original view or any reason to think that it will be anything other than irrelevant to British industry.
Since the Committee stage there has been one new development. We have all read the comments of Sir Douglas Wass, permanent secretary to the Treasury, about the gigantic sums of money that the Government are diverting into low return projects. This point arises again in our next group of amendments. That is precisely the criticism that we have made repeatedly of Government industrial policy. They are diverting huge sums of money into areas of very low or negative return.
We believe that the NEB should be compelled immediately by the Government to sell off as much as possible of its portfolio. We also believe it should be prevented from making any new acquisitions and should not be given more money in order to go marauding through the private sector of British industry.
Given that that is our view, most people will agree that the figures in our amendment are extremely modest and reasonable. We want to limit the amount of money going to the NEB in a way that will allow it to honour its existing commitments to Rolls-Royce and British Leyland.
The figures in the Bill are a little deceptive. The figures relating to the financial limits in the Bill are not comparable with the financial limits in the previous legislation. For the first time the financial limits in this Bill include the private sector borrowings of partly owned subsidiaries of the NEB. Not all the money is a huge increase in public expenditure.
This is precisely what has put the Government in such a dilemma. They do not know whether to present this as an enormous increase in public expenditure or as a rather modest increase in public expenditure. Characteristically they have decided to do both. When the Minister faces his hon. Friends below the Gangway he talks about a great advance for Socialism and a massive increase in public expenditure. When he is upstairs in Committee and there is some possibility that our proceedings may be delayed, or when he is talking to the CBI, a rather different tone is adopted. He tends to claim that this is a very modest increase and points out that for the first time the figures include the private sector borrowings of the partly owned subsidiaries.
We believe that the money to be made available through this Bill is far too much. That is why we are opposed to it and have put forward these amendments. I shall explain the precise basis of the figures. At present the NEB has spent and is committed to about £830 million of public expenditure. The private sector borrowings are another £800 million. Over the next three to four


years, those private sector borrowings are expected to increase to about £1·2 billion. Therefore, £830 million in existing commitments and expenditure and £1·2 billion of private sector borrowings make a total of £2 billion. In addition, the existing commitments of the NEB to British Leyland and Rolls-Royce amount to between £600 million and £700 million. Altogether, that adds up to £2·6 billion or £2·7 billion. That leaves, under the existing limit, an amount of £300 million to £400 million for the other activities of the NEB.
I have outlined the simple arithmetic so that the House can see that our proposal, in opposition to the NEB and its activities, is extremely modest. It aims to cut back the expenditure of the NEB to prevent the other activities—the private sector marauding—over and above its commitment to British Leyland and to Rolls-Royce. We regard many of the recent activities of the NEB as totally irrelevant and unnecessary.
The NEB has offered finance to many people who have been turned down by provincial bank managers from John o'Groats to Land's End. It has become involved in endless projects—tanning, machine tools, office equipment, clock making at St. Leonards and selling private medical services overseas. The diversity of its activities is a worrying feature. The sheer variety of problems and different types of businesses that it has to consider makes one doubt the competence of the NEB.

Mr. Giles Radice: Would the hon. Gentleman, in view of his criticisms of the NEB, tell us whether the Conservative Party if, by some misfortune, it were returned to power after the general election, would do away with the NEB?

Mr. Lamont: I have devoted several minutes to that point. Without wishing to be churlish, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman studies my speech in Hansard.
We strongly reject the argument that there is a gap in the capital market which only the NEB is able to fulfil and that smaller companies cannot get finance from sources other than the NEB. This is an old argument that we have heard over and again—we heard it in the 1930s. A number of different Government

backed institutions have been brought into existence to deal with the problem, such as FFI and the Equity Bank. None of the bodies found that there was an enormous demand for its services. Like other lending institutions in this country, they found that, far from there being a lack of money, there was too much money. The problem arises from the lack of opportunities and high returns to be earned in British industry. That is the fundamental industrial problem—not the lack of finance but the poor rate of return on capital. None of the activities of the NEB makes the slightest difference to that problem.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) that during the course of his speech he would answer his question about the NEB. I have given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to do so, but he has not taken it up. I wonder whether I can give him a further opportunity to say what would happen to the NEB if, by some misfortune, the Conservative Party were returned to power?

Mr. Lamont: I have made it crystal clear that a Conservative Government would, first, remove the power of the NEB to make any more acquisitions—to go marauding over the private sector—and, secondly, compel it to sell immediately as much of its portfolio that can be sold straight away.
The amendment proposes to reduce the amount of money from £3 billion to £2,700 million. It also proposes to reduce the amount for which the Government have to get the approval of the House by order—the increase from £3 billion to £4·5 billion. Some detailed information was received in Committee about how the £3 billion was to be broken down, but we received no explanation of the need for the further increase to £4·5 billion. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what it is intended that the NEB will do with the money.
Under the revised plan for British Leyland—the Edwardes plan—there is a £200 million to £300 million investment only to be made. However, under this increase there is to be a further total increase in public expenditure and private borrowings amounting to £1·5 billion. My hon. Friends and I do not believe that there


is an excuse for that. That is why the second amendment totally rejects that increase and leaves the maximum upper limit of money available to the NEB at £3 billion.
We believe that the proposed increases are unnecessary. We disapprove of the NEB's activities in smaller companies. Furthermore, the NEB has assets in its portfolio that we believe it should be encouraged to sell. Why does it continue to hang on to its shares in Ferranti? Those could be sold off easily and some of the money used for further investment.
Why does the NEB maintain its shareholding in ICL? What is the function of the NEB in relation to ICL? On Second Reading the Secretary of State tried to justify the existence of the NEB by reference to what it had done for ICL. But it has not given ICL any money and has even forgotten to put a director on the board. It appears to have nothing to do with ICL. I can understand why the Secretary of State says that the one company that the Government have not interfered with is one of the few companies in the NEB's portfolio which has been an outstanding success. However, we believe that it should be compelled to release its holdings in ICL.
We do not believe that the NEB needs the vast sums that the Government are considering in the Bill. Its track record is not good. The rate of return that it has earned on its investments is well below the average in British industry. The rate of return projected for the NEB for next year is well below the average for British industry. It makes no sense to devote these huge sums of money to areas of low and negative return. Sir Douglas Wass made that criticism in his memorandum when he criticised the Government's industrial policy.
The Government are spending more and more taxpayers' money on low-yielding investments. They are not saving jobs in soundly based companies but destroying them. They are undermining profitable productive companies in the private sector. For that reason, we do not believe that there is justification for the huge allocation of money, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendments.

Mr. Thorne: I shall not delay the House for long. I am not satisfied with

the reply—if it can be called that—of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) to my question. He seemed to be saying that the Tories would not dismantle the NEB and that it was necessary to keep it alive because it would have to continue its interest in Rolls-Royce and British Leyland. I am forced to ask what other companies would be regarded by a Conservative Government as worthy of NEB intervention. It is difficult to foresee, but the last Conservative Government's decision to get involved in Rolls-Royce was a recognition that the private sector had failed there and needed public intervention in order to assist it over a hump—to put it no stronger.
It may be argued that Rolls-Royce was a prestigious part of the British private sector and that the then Government would not have treated other industries in the same way. However, that argument does not stand up because Governments of whatever complexion take decisions about industry and the economy on the basis of prevailing circumstances. Had the present Government not encouraged NEB intervention in our economy, many private sector firms would have made a much smaller contribution to our economy.
The Conservatives fall back on the ideological argument of private, as opposed to public, sector involvement in British industry. They have made no secret of the fact that they believe that we should have a largely private-based business economy. Some of my hon Friends—though I wonder from time to time how far it extends—believe that what is stated in clause four of the Labour Party's constitution about achieving public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange should be implemented.
It must be acknowledged that the setting up of the NEB was an attempt to get involved in industry with public money in a way that would be to the advantage of the British people in terms of planning some, if not all, sections of the British economy. However, it has seemed that all too often intervention has taken place as a result of particular problems relating to the market, employment and so on in certain sectors. That could be described as negative rather than positive intervention.
I want the NEB to get more involved in profitable sections of industry and in industries with a high potential. I welcome the Board's involvement in Inmos, because that sector will be taking off and making a substantial contribution to our economic growth. I hope that it will not be too long before we see the first factory in production. I hope that it will be in a depressed area, such as the North-West. If that happens, it will be another reason for welcoming the work of the Board and the part of the Bill giving it the additional funds that are necessary for it to carry out its functions.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames mentioned Ferranti. That is a particularly unfortunate part of the NEB's involvements. The shareholders and the Ferranti family made a killing from their shares as a result of the Board's involvement and I regret that. It would have been advisable for the Board to do a little more research about where its money was to go. It is unfortunate—I put it no higher than that, but I would not blame anyone who put it in stronger terms—that much of the money finished up in the pockets of the private shareholders of Ferranti.
We are on a straight question whether we support or reject Government involvement in the private sector and an increase in the number of public sector enterprises.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he thinks that the NEB paid too much for its stake in Ferranti?

Mr. Thorne: I understand that about £9 million of public funds was involved and if those funds finished up in the pockets of Ferranti shareholders I view that with some misgivings. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the position.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): It may be of assistance to the House if I remind hon. Members that the NEB did not pay anything for Ferranti. That enterprise collapsed before the Board was set up. It was rescued by the Labour Government and when the NEB was established the shareholdings of the Government were transferred to the extremely safe care of the Board.

Mr. Thorne: I hope that that answer satisfies the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). It still leaves in my mind at least two or three questions that I do not intend to go into at this stage. I welcome the proposals in the Bill—warts and all—and I hope that the Bill will pass as soon as possible.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: It is a great misfortune for the NEB and, therefore, for the British economy that we have this wholly contrived and artificial confrontation. The blame must be laid at the door of the Government which originated these mischievous proposals.
I can say without risk of effective contradiction that the House would not be debating the amendments if the Government had been more reasonable in the legislation. There were tied votes on all the amendments in Committee. The Liberal vote would not have been given to a restriction of the Bill if the measure had been a workmanlike piece of legislation for furthering the real interests of the NEB instead of being a propaganda exercise to give some sort of superficial comfort to the Left wing of the Labour Party and to establish a temporary unity before the general election.
The Liberal Party does not share the doctrinaire hostility of the Conservative segment of the Opposition to the NEB. We have made clear from the beginning that we regard the Board as a civilised device which has already performed a considerable service to the economy, not-ably in the case of Ferranti.
We would have given a fair wind to legislation that satisfied two simple conditions. First, since the Government have been extremely dilatory and ineffective in producing a permanent system of direct accountability of the NEB to Parliament, we are forced back on the position, on which we have to stick, that public money should be doled out to the NEB in such rations that at least once a year the House should have a major occasion—not just a late-night debate on an order—to discuss the affairs of the NEB.
5 p.m.
We are wholly opposed to the fantastic figures in this legislation which the National Enterprise Board itself says it will be unlikely to need in full for at least


three and a half to four years. I am not suggesting that this business of annual legislation for increasing the funds of the NEB is the ideal procedure but since the Government have been obstinate in refusing to set up any more sensible system of accountability direct to Parliament, we are forced back on the view, which we hold tenaciously, that the money must be granted in such sums as require the NEB to come back to the House for legislation at least annually so that the House can exercise proper scrutiny.
The other consideration is our long held view that a body such as the National Enterprise Board should be positively encouraged and, if necessary, strongly nudged to re-cycle its own funds. I share the view of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) that the NEB holdings in Ferranti and ICL, if not at this moment, at any rate in the foreseeable future, should be available in liquid form for the continuing work of the NEB. It is most unfortunate that the NEB's future course, depending, of course, on the votes of the British electorate this year, should be put in jeopardy because the Government, instead of coming forward with a reasonable measure, which would not have run into trouble in Committee, have turned the Bill into this propaganda exercise. Neither out of any ill will to the NEB nor through any desire to cripple it in the way that the Conservative Party, in its present mood, appears to want, but simply because the present Bill defies the doctrine of accountability to Parliament and defies the wisdom of pressing the NEB to re-cycle its own funds, I shall recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to support these amendments.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I am glad to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). He made his view clear in Committee and I agreed with a good deal of what he said today. We have had an extremely difficult task on this Bill, trying to pin down the numbers that we are talking about. We have had little indication of any future opportunity to get more detailed scrutiny.
I support what the hon. Member for Colne Valley said regarding the role of the PAC and the need to trim the figures, if only to register the way in which we are

concerned about the levels of public expenditure involved. However we slice this argument, the levels of borrowing of the NEB cannot be divorced from the preemption of resources which may be required for many competing claims. That is why we attempted in Committee to get down to the detailed arguments of the breakdown of the £4,500 million. In this endeavour we totally failed.
Those of us who served on the Standing Committee received a publication entitled"The National Enterprise Board: Facts and Figures"published by the Department of Industry. That document was sent to us by the Minister of State, who was a member of the Committee sitting on the Bill but who is no longer taking part in these proceedings. He did his best to rectify some appalling gaps—

Mr. Tebbit: The Minister of State is here, but he is still not taking any interest in the debate.

Mr. Marshall: As my hon. Friend points out, the Minister of State for Emergencies is now back in his place. I hope that he will bend his mind to this debate. We were sorry when his emergency role took him away to deal with other matters. His right hon. Friend provided this booklet of facts and figures but, as I shall show, these answer practically none of the simple and straightforward questions which I would like to repeat to the Minister of State, although his hon. Friend is to reply. My heart sinks even lower at that thought, because we got even less information from that hon. Gentleman than from his right hon. Friend.
I will go carefully through the numbers game again so that even at this late hour the Government can make clear what they are attempting to do with this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) spelt out the figures clearly. He gave an estimate of £2,700 million and contrasted that with the figures produced by the Minister of State, as they stood at 31 January 1978. The figures that the Minister of State gave totalled £856 million of known commitments, made up of £452 million of PDC, £164 million of the National Loans Fund, £5 million of guarantees and £55 million for the wholly-owned subsidiary commitments. It would be helpful if the Under-Secre-


tary could update these figures from 31 January 1978. I hope that he will have a more recent figure than the £856 million that was given to us in Standing Committee.
The only other information relating to the future, which is what this Bill is all about, is that about £1,500 million—the amount has not been updated in"Facts and Figures "—may be required over the next five years by the non wholly owned subsidiaries. With the present limit of £1,000 million, that would leave £2,000 million to be accounted for. That is the nub of the argument that the hon. Member for Colne Valley was touching upon. We are no further forward in knowing how that take-up is to operate. We were told by the Minister of State that if one took the sum of £275 million a year over the next five years, at the current rate of expenditure of funds by the NEB, the take-up over the five years would be £1,375 million. We were told that this would leave £575 million, or £115 million a year, for contingencies.
Contingencies of £115 million a year is the most mind-boggling concept in accounting that we have ever come across. It is the kind of money that any entrepreneur in the country would leap to get his hands on. It shows the incredible range, even within the Government's own first"guesstimate ", to which this whole Bill brings us.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley is right. It reflects the propaganda exercise that is going on. Even at this late stage, I would like to put on record that all the discussions that hon. Members have had with the NEB convinces us that these figures have no relation to the needs that the board has expressed. I urge the Under-Secretary to deny, if he can, that the limits now offered to the NEB are well in excess of the figures it has called for. I know that he will not be able to deny that.
In our proceedings in Committee the Government fell back on that hoary old chestnut, the 1972 Electricity Bill, and talked about the £2,000 million in this Bill being comparable. We had to point out that the Electricity Bill of 1972 dealt with investment over a 25-year period, by a massive industry, looking in a clear, direct way to its investment needs. In

this Bill, we are talking about an extra £2,000 million for which we have had no chapter and verse. We look at detailed questions and our fears continue. As the Bill has proceeded on its tortuous path, we have dragged out information bit by bit. When we come to further amendments, we will have a chance to examine what stage we have reached.
Let us examine the requirements of British Leyland and Rolls-Royce. We referred in Committee to our understanding that the present anticipated requirements were £400 million for British Leyland and £200 million for Rolls-Royce within these borrowing limits. Can the Under-Secretary confirm or deny that these figures are approximately correct? That would at least help us to understand the breakdown of the largest single element within the NEB commitments.
As to how far the NEB can reduce its borrowing limits by self-generated funds, my hon. Friend reminded the Government Front Bench of the situation over ICL and Ferranti. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) pointed out that on our reckoning at least £70 million could be realised quickly and easily, which would be a gesture towards the NEB's self-financing propensity rather than once again the pre-emption of natural resources on a massive scale. Similarly, the question was raised of the return on public dividend capital. Is any assumption of dividend to be written into this five-year period? That at least would be some return to the taxpayers for their commitments.
Finally—this is a matter of great importance, on which we have not yet touched—what is the specific position regarding loss-making companies? Will the loss-making companies continue to draw uninterrupted provision of capital or will some kind of financial discipline be imposed upon them regarding their continued loss-making?
I should like to quote a specific example, and I should be grateful if the Minister would bend his mind to it. I hope that he is as concerned as I am. I understand that Cambridge Instruments is being threatened by its creditors regarding the payment of bills going back to last October on the basis that, unless those bills are paid by Friday of this week, the company will be sued. I can


give details to the Minister if he wants to follow up this matter more closely afterwards. The answer being given to the creditors is that their bills cannot be paid because there is no provision of funds available from the NEB. If the NEB is not making funds available to Cambridge Instruments to meet its current commitments, surely we are entitled to know what attitude is being taken by the NEB towards the future financing of Cambridge Instruments, to name but one company.
I could continue with a review of the many questions to which we have not yet had answers. We shall hope to deal with some of them on later amendments. If the Government, with all the prompting and opportunities that they have now had, cannot begin to spell matters out and give us chapter and verse, they must understand that they will have a rough ride before the Bill gets on to the statute book.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: My mind is confused by an earlier occasion today when the Prime Minister, with righteous indignation and pride, told us how he had lambasted our European partners—I suggest, with an unacceptable degree of personal rudeness—because they pursued a policy of subsidising inefficient agriculture. He made the point—for once, I found myself in some sympathy with him—that contributing endless sums of money towards agriculture resulted not in its restructuring, thereby making it more efficient, but in it continuing in its present structure and remaining equally inefficient, but building up surpluses which caused further problems of finance.
It seems strange to find myself favoured by your calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to contribute to the debate when I hear extolled on both sides the virtue of pouring equally large, or even larger, sums of money into industry which is greatly more inefficient than European agriculture. I cannot help feeling that the result will be not to restructure our industry so that it becomes competitive but to give it the hope that it may continue with its practices without changing its ways on the reliable assurance that money will be forthcoming.
We are already below half the levels of industrial efficiency of our major competitors. As the years go by, the gap widens.

As the gap widens, we become relatively poorer. Therefore, the take of taxation bites deeper into our ailing industry. In order to keep that ailing industry at the same level of subsidised existence, the amount of taxation that has to be given to it will have to increase. From a dwindling tax base we are now contemplating giving an increasing subsidy to a dwindingly efficient industrial sector.
That is evidenced by those who take the simple precaution of looking at the yield of corporation tax against the total money paid out through the Department of Industry. It is worth remembering that corporation tax is paid by financial and commercial institutions which have nothing to do with industry. The net contribution to corporation tax by industry is probably a small fraction of the total yield of that tax. Yet subsidies to industry are growing fast and have now exceeded the total yield of corporation tax. Therefore, industry is a net beneficiary of the Budget and the subsidies are growing fast.
5.15 p.m.
The Prime Minister goes to Brussels and talks about the possibility of a tax revolt here because British taxpayers no longer want to contribute to the inefficiencies of European agriculture, but he is wrong. In fact, the taxpayers of Europe are subsidising our food through the monetary compensatory amounts. Indeed, he is even more wrong, because taxpayers in this country cannot afford to pay the taxes to provide the subsidies outlined in the Bill. That, incidentally and by the way, is why I wholeheartedly support the amendment, though I wish that it went a little further.

Mr. Tebbit: I hope that my hon. Friend will not stretch too far the analogy between money that goes into the common agricultural fund and that which goes to the NEB. After all, no one has yet suggested that we are in danger of having a British Leyland car mountain or anything of that kind. We do not get anything for this money, whereas we do get surpluses of food for the money which goes to the common agricultural fund.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: No. The Russians get them.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) made a


fair point. I concede it. However, it does not interrupt the argument that I am putting forward. The results of inefficiency in Europe have been to build up surpluses; but the results of our industrial inefficiency have been that we do not produce. An elementary point often missed by Labour Members is that we can only export a surplus. To export one extra motor car now would cause us to import another to replace it.
This dilemma was highlighted in the letter from Sir Douglas Wass to Sir Peter Carey. I think that the House owes a debt of gratitude to whoever had the wisdom and public spiritedness to make this letter available to us. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) interrupts from a sedentary position, so I cannot deal with his point.
In his letter, Sir Douglas states that
 The startling and disturbing conclusion is that we have been accumulating prospective losses of real resources at a rate faster than the growth of national income.
The Bill, as we all know, is one step along that road. I shall not go through the seven projects that are listed in the letter. If we are accumulating industrial losses at a rate greater than the growth of our national income, should not someone say"Stop "? If the effect of the Government's so-called industrial strategy is not to make our industry more efficient but to land upon us ever greater tax bills to pay, causing us to raise ever greater taxation, ought we not to stop and consider where we are going?
A whole lot of jargon has for years been thrown about this Chamber. The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) talked about the State getting involved in industry. The Government seemed to think that buying into a few companies, investing in a few profit-making companies and a few loss-making companies, and pouring in resources in order to save them, was a way of tackling our basic industrial inefficiencies.
We cannot go on pretending that there is nothing wrong with British industry except that here and there it needs a touch of financial assistance and a little investment or that it needs only a little guidance from sector plan and the National Enterprise Board. This is not true. Some people blame management

and some blame trade unions. I think that both views are unlikely to represent the truth. The idea that every industrial manager in Britain is bad is ridiculous. It would be just as ridiculous to say that every hon. Member of this House is bad at his job. There are good and bad in all professions and the same applies to trade unions.
There is something fundamentally wrong in the relationships between managers, shareholders, workers and customers. This is not the time to try to find detailed answers, but if that is so, should this House not be addressing itself to that problem? We should not pretend that, by forking out money on the scale proposed in this Bill to such organisations as the National Enterprise Board—which we all know to be the candy floss of industrial society—will solve our problems. Such schemes are totally irrelevant to the man on the shop floor, the man trying to sell in the Middle East, or those trying to deal with a strike or a major design problem.
Putting more money into industry creates in the minds of those who work in industry a sense of security—a feeling that the present situation can continue. That deludes managers, investors and workers into thinking that there is nothing that deserves their attention. That is the worst sin of the present Government, aided and abetted, according to the speech by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), by the Liberal Party. He talked about the Liberal vote going this or that way and about the Liberals doing this or that. How marvellous it would be if I could describe myself as"the Ridley vote ", which might be decisive or divisive in any of these matters. I admire the hon. Member's presumption, but I do not admire his connivance at what is going on.
It can no longer be said that the mere provision of extra funds, whether for the rescue of lame ducks, or for successful companies, or for starting new companies, is all that is needed. That could be counter-productive, because we are at the point where British industry must face the reality of its own uncompetitiveness.
I do not know what is wrong, but I object bitterly when a nation will not face the realities. I object bitterly to


the Labour Party trying to disguise the realities. Whatever may be the faults of the Tory Party, the Labour Party has always said that our problems are the fault of the City for not providing the money, or the fault of managers who drive Jaguars and who eat in separate dining rooms.
The truth is that our present state is the fault of the whole of British industry. I believe that we should cut off the supply of funds in order to concentrate the minds of both sides of industry. It is no good their believing that all they need to do is to sit and wait for the House to vote more money. Until we cut off those funds we shall not achieve the necessary changes in outlook that will give industry the chance, once more, of earning its own living instead of being parasitical.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is very experienced in these matters, since he was once a junior Minister at the Department of Industry. In 1970 the Vickers company decided to close the most up-to-date ship repair yard in Britain. I lobbied my right hon. Friends in the Labour Government who decided to put £250,000 into the company. They did that as an experiment.
Within six weeks of that yard being saved the Conservative Party came into office. One of the first deputations received by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was a deputation led by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans). The Tory Government said"Nothing doing. It is finished." Of course, that was because profitability was the only yardstick. If that is the only yardstick, we should abolish the Army tomorrow, because that does not make any profit.

Mr. John Brace-Gardyne: Rubbish.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) should be quiet and listen. He has not been here long enough to treat me like that.
According to the Tory doctrine we should close down the Navy, because that does not make a profit, and we should get rid of the Air Force and the National Health Service, because they do not make a profit. We should also get rid of our

education services, including the universities. One could go on.
I put it to hon. Members who are going to live much longer that I am—though that is only the law of nature, and not because they have superior qualities to mine—that when I was a young man pits, factories and steel works could be shut down, throwing thousands of men out of work. Nobody gave a damn about what happened to them. Those workers accepted the situation submissively. They had to sign on and, after six months, they had to undergo the means test. As a result of that, they suffered hardships, inequalities and injustices. They were forgotten men.
I beg hon. Members who seek a stable society to understand that such action cannot be taken against workers today. Our people are too articulate. Working men and women know that they count for something today. If they are not allowed to count, they will make trouble. I do not want them to make trouble. I want whatever changes which are coming in society to come about by peaceable means.
5.30 p.m.
Just over the river from me the Vickers company is closing a factory. The company has issued notices. About 750 men are to be thrown out of work. Deputations from the shop stewards have been here every week for the last six weeks. About 1,500 people have been declared redundant in Spennymoor.
Hon. Members may say that this does not matter, that we should not bother about it, that if a company wants to close a factory we should let it do so because that is its prerogative. But those men feel that they have as much right to a place in this society as any of us. If they feel that society and Parliament do not care, and they take a path to which everyone would object, we cannot blame them. We must blame ourselves.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury referred to what the Prime Minister said today. We have been pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into the Common Market for nothing, ever since we joined. The hon. Member was one of those who held out the glorious spectacle of what would happen when the dynamism from the Common Market had its effect on this country.

Mr. Tebbit: rose—

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Member must wait a minute. I did not interrupt anybody. I was taught that patience is a virtue. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was not taught the good manners that I was taught. He believes that he has a right to interrupt. He might be able to get away with that in the company in which he moves, but he cannot get away with it here.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member referred to Vickers. According to my memory of the 1960s and early 1970s, the only threat to Vickers was a damaging demarcation dispute which resulted in a six month strike about who should deal with copper tube. That dispute nearly brought Vickers Barrow to a close.
One of the principal architects of that strike was the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), who was working in Vickers at that time. That was the threat to Vickers, not what I did.

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Member is mixed up about his geography. Barrow is on the West coast and Jarrow is on the East coast. About 150 miles divide them.
I have enough problems in my own constituency without worrying about what happens in Barrow. But presumably the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has no problems in his constituency. Apparently all his constituents are happy and satisfied so he has all the time in the world to worry about what happens in Barrow and Jarrow.
The hon. Member should read the speeches that he made when we were being induced, or seduced, to join the Common Market. Nobody said then what the Prime Minister said this afternoon—that we should be making a net contribution of £1,000 million a year. The benefits were supposed to flow this way, not the other. We have not found being a member of the Common Market to be a benefit. We have to make substantial payments to it all the time.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said that British industry is now a net beneficiary from the budget. What will happen if, God forbid, the hon. Member and his colleagues occupy the Government Benches? Will they

immediately do what the CBI says should be done? Will they withdraw all subsidies from British industry, including farming? Will they say that all industry must stand on its own feet? Will they say that nobody should receive Government aid?

Mr. Tom Litterick: If the hon. Member said that, the people of Cirencester would cut his throat.

Mr. Fernyhough: Everybody knows that the Conservatives would not cut off all subsidies. I shall not be here in the next Parliament.

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Member will not be alone.

Mr. Fernyhough: There is much more chance of my successor being elected at the next election than there is of the hon. Member for Chingford being elected. We can have a bet on that.

Mr. Tebbit: That is wishful thinking.

Mr. Fernyhough: It is not. These are the facts of life which are borne out by history.
I do not know what Opposition Members say to the deputations of shop stewards who must occasionally come to them because, even in their constituencies, there must be factory closures. I do not know whether they say to the boys"I cannot talk to you. There is nothing that I can do. I am not prepared to lead a deputation." I would almost gamble that there is not an hon. Member in the House who has not sent letters to Ministers asking for public help for private enterprise. They will continue to ask for that help. Particularly as we near an election, hon. Members would not dare say to the lads of Vickers or to the lads of Courtaulds—if they represented them—" Boys, we are sorry, but there is nothing that we can do for you."
Everyone knows that Conservative Members would seek all the publicity that they could by pretending that they were going to move heaven and earth to save the jobs of those who were to be put out of work because of inefficient management.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I exclude myself from that category. I should have no hesitation in explaining


to any such deputation that it was entirely this Government's fault that they were in that predicament and that it had nothing to do with management.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am glad to exonerate the hon. Member. It is delightful to meet an hon. Member who is so out of touch with everyone else. I too was also a junior Minister. I listened to the speeches in the House and read the letters which hon. Members sent to me privately. What they said in the House had nothing to do with the contents of the letters which they sent to me.
I believe that what we say privately we should defend publicly. When factories are being closed or run down and redundancies are occurring, I should respect any Tory Member who said to workers"Boys, of course we are making no representations on your behalf. Of course we shall not ask for any Government money to project your jobs." If Conservative Members go with deputations secretly to Ministers and then make speeches such as we have heard today, I say that they are humbugs.

Mr. Nick Budgen: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) spoke first about the waste of resources of the NEB and its inefficiency. I shall take that argument a little further. In doing so I much regret the absence of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). In his short and interesting speech the hon. Gentleman hit on the real nature of the NEB. He rightly said that the NEB is an essential part of the planned society that he wants. It is because I agree with him that I oppose the NEB's existence.
Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. The NEB is a part of the planned society of those who want administered prices, levels of employment, wages and an entirely political society. That is a total rejection of the philosophy of those of us who say that for all its hideous imperfections and all its harshness the market is the only instrument that will provide change according to the odd, Quixotic and irrational preferences of the people.
When listening to the arguments I realise that I should have been opposed to the NEB even if, for the sake of argument, every one of its investments turned

out to be highly profitable. The activities of the NEB are not those in which the State should be engaged.
I advance an argument by way of analogy. If, for the sake of argument, the State decided to take part in the activity of betting on horses, I should not be interested in which horse the State backed in the 3.40 at Cheltenham. I should not be prepared to discuss ad infinitum whether the State backer had taken into account an especially heavy fall of rain shortly before the off. Even if the State backer backed every winner at Cheltenham, it would still be my opinion that the State should not be involved in that activity.
I argue that I am prepared to concede that Sir Leslie Murphy and his men are highly intelligent and honourable, honest, efficient, good administrators, good backers of the right people and that they make every concession that may be made in respect of them. Even if we conclude that they have a much better record of choice and rate of strike than any of the most sophisticated merchant banks in the City of London, I argue that they should not be in that business.
5.45 p.m.
When we come to consider the advantages of allowing the consumer to decide who shall prosper and who shall fail, I respectfully disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and for Woking (Mr. Onslow). My hon. Friends talked about people being at fault when their businesses fail.
There is a simple market test of the success of a business. The test is whether the business makes a profit. However, a business may fail for a variety of reasons. It may fail because consumer preference has changed. It may fail because it has bad management, an awkward work force or an idle work force.
The puritan argument that failure is always a consequence of the inefficiency or corruptness of the work force or of the management is not true. Nor is the converse true—namely, that all those who are rich and successful in society are better, more honourable or more Christian than others. They are merely successful. They are merely those who happen to have succeeded in the market place. They are rich, but that does not mean


that they are in any way better than those who are poor.
If somebody came to me in my constituency and told me that his firm was failing, I regret that I should not give the same answer as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking and say that the fault lies with the Government. If the firm is not making profits and if it fails, those concerned will have my deepest sympathy, but I shall not necessarily say that there is a political solution. That is because I completely reject the philosophy of the hon. Member for Preston, South.
In reflecting my deep hostility to the NEB, I do not pretend that I reflect the view of the majority of the Conservative Party. There is deep scepticism within the Conservative Party about the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the NEB. I much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames that he looks forward to the future of the NEB under a Tory administration. It is true that we want no more acquisitions. It is true that we want the NEB to sell its profitable parts, especially parts such as Ferranti and ICL.
We recognise that the NEB must have a short-term existence under a Tory Administration. I agree with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) that we must have regular reviews—I hope that they will be annual—of the NEB's financial requirements. I add a fifth principle that should guide an incoming Tory Administration. I say that the NEB has entered into contractual arrangements with private citizens and that the arrangements must be honoured.
It is true that those of us who have a strong philosophical distaste for the Labour Party must remember that there has to be continuity within the country. However much we disapprove of the idea of an administered political society as illustrated by the hon. Member for Preston, South, we must recognise that business men have to act within a changing society and that if the rules are immediately changed after a general election there can be no continuity and no stable existence within which they may make sensible decisions within a market framework.
The NEB must exist for some time. We must honour its obligations, but we

must force it to reduce its activities so that we may above all reduce the element of political interference and—I go further—political corruption in our society.

Mr. John Cronin: I imagine that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) does not want the House to take him seriously when he says that the market is the only proper criterion for economic decisions. If that were so, it is certain that British Leyland workers would be out of work on an enormous scale. Hundreds of thousands would be unemployed. Within my constituency, many Rolls-Royce workers would be out of work, and Rolls-Royce would not be producing the RB211 aero-engine, one of the most successful technological achievements and innovations in the world. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was carried away when he made that rather unfortunate remark.
I was tempted to speak by the interesting remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) when he moved the amendment. He told us in clear terms that it would be the policy of a future Conservative Government to remove from the National Enterprise Board its power to acquire more companies, and also to sell off its portfolios as soon as possible. I hope that I understood him correctly.
I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would say what a hypothetical Conservative Government would do if a disaster occurred such as that which happened to Rolls-Royce? That company was nationalised by the Conservative Government under the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). What would such a Government do in the case of the disaster of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, which was also nationalised by the Conservative Government? What action would his Government take? Would they do without the help of the National Enterprise Board, which has special expertise in these matters, or would they indulge in some ad hoc arrangement? We should know what would happen.
The leaked letter of Sir Douglas Wass was quoted by the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that it is good to quote such letters. We do not know whether it is accurate. Nor do we know what were the replies. I should have thought that Sir


Douglas was properly putting the strict Treasury point of view, calling attention to the Treasury accountiug point of view. He did not refer to the national interest and the interests of industry. I hope when we hear the results of the inquiry we shall know what was the reply to the letter which Sir Douglas wrote.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The hon. Gentleman says that the paper by Sir Douglas Wass did not take account of the wider national interest. I imagine that one of the subjects the hon. Gentleman has in mind is employment. Does he agree that it was crystal clear from what appeared in The Guardian that Sir Douglas said that after deducting the sums invested in these loss making projects and taking the potential employment benefit into account, there would still be a massive loss and amount spent by the Treasury on projects which could not hope to become viable?

Mr. Cronin: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Sir Douglas Wass objected to money being spent by the Treasury on a large scale. That is why he is there. He is the permanent secretary to the Treasury. Other Departments have taken into consideration the national interest and the effects on industry generally. I suggest that Sir Douglas Wass's letter put only the limited view of the Treasury.

Mr. Michael Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is on to a serious point as to whether such documents should be quoted. It seems to me that after the publicity that the matter has received, chapter and verse, this is a good opportunity for Ministers to reply to points made.
The hon. Gentleman said that there were other considerations. He has not touched on the commercial judgment that went into the RB 211. Does he, with his experience, accept the view of Sir Douglas Wass that this was an inherently risky project, even on the most optimistic assumptions, and could not break even until 1993?

Mr. Cronin: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to make a sensible intervention. How can Ministers reply in advance of a proper inquiry into the matter? That would be wrong and im-

proper We should leave the subject of Sir Douglas Wass.

Mr. Tebbit: I understand why the hon. Gentleman is anxious to leave the subject of Sir Douglas Wass. My objection, which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand, is that in that memorandum the Treasury produces figures which presumably had not been invented but which were totally contrary to the figures that Ministers gave at the Dispatch Box when they asked the House to grant money for the projects. The worry is that Ministers and the Treasury were not telling the same stories.

Mr. Cronin: I do not think that we should pursue this matter. We shall know all about it when we hear the result of the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. He gets carried away sometimes. It is generally accepted in the Civil Service that there was some criticims of the nature of Sir Douglas Wass's figures.

Mr. Kaufman: If we are to debate these matters—and there are other amendments—it would be helpful if we did so on the basis of fact. One of the facts about the British Aerospace projects mentioned in that memorandum was that neither of them required Treasury spending apart from the £50 million grant to the airbus, which the House approved and which the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) supported on behalf of the Opposition when he said:
 At this stage we must to a considerable extent trust in the judgment of the board of British Aerospace."—[Official Report, Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments; 7 February 1979, c. 21.]
The hon. Gentleman said that when he supported the £50 million grant. The main expenditure on the airbus comes not from the Treasury but from the highly profitable British Aerospace, and the entire financing of the British Aerospace 146 comes from British Aerospace. Not a penny comes from the Treasury.

Mr. Cronin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I had not wanted to touch on that matter further. It makes it clear that Sir Douglas Wass' views in this letter were quoted erroneously.
I return to the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames. I am wondering how he will put the idea


of removing the power of the NEB to acquire more companies across to his Back Benchers. We heard from the Minister of State on Second Reading, and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) today, that the Minister has been overwhelmed with letters from hon. Members opposite demanding an increase in the activities of the NEB in their constituencies. It seems that there is some inefficiency on the part of the Whips if they do not bring about more co-ordination between their Front Bench and Back-Bench members, when Back Benchers write letters to the Minister of State containing requests that are contrary to the policy of their own Front Bench colleagues.
The hon. Gentleman was insistent that it would be Conservative policy to sell off portfolios as soon as possible. I assume that he refers to the profitable portfolios, as the unprofitable portfolios are obviously unsaleable.
I assume that the hon. Gentleman has had some experience of market operations. I wonder whether he appreciates the massive loss that would be involved if those portfolios were sold on the open market. We know that if it is the policy of the Government to sell portfolios the price would drop immediately; the price would go down consistently. The selling of portfolios as soon as possible would result in a massive loss of public money. [Interruption.] It is no use hon. Gentlemen laughing. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not know much about this. How would he explain the massive loss of money that would result in the fall in the value of the portfolios? I doubt whether he would have an explanation.

Mr. Onslow: In many cases if there were to be such a book loss that would occur because the NEB, in its anxiety to acquire a stake in British industry, paid considerably above the market value, as it has done in many cases.

Mr. Cronin: I understand that it is the policy of the Conservative Party to sell off NEB's portfolios immediately. That would be laughed to scorn by an office boy in any stockbroker's office. That is a naive policy and would cause a great loss of public money. What would a Conservative Government do with the proceeds of selling off portfolios? Would

they put the proceeds in the bank? What would they do with them? They must do something with the proceeds. What would happen to the morale, and consequently the efficiency of those companies, when they learned that their portfolios had been sold off for a nominal price? I suggest that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames—who, judging by his bigoted remarks is no doubt due for high office in any prospective Conservative Government—ought to do his homework more carefully about operations in the City. [Interruption.]
I gather from these noises, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Opposition Members are in some doubt about my competence to pronounce on these matters. I am admittedly a consultant surgeon, but I am also a director of a £500 million company, so I know something about financial matters.
6 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman also complained of the very inadequate explanation of the increase. How much explanation did we receive during the Conservative Government presided over by the right hon. Member for Sidcup? Their electricity Bill brought about a staggering increase in borrowing powers of the Electricity Council from £5,200 million to £7,700 million. Their Post Office Bill increased the borrowings of the Post Office from £2,800 million to £4,800 million. These are staggering figures and I cannot recollect that we had any satisfactory explanation of them at that time. We had only an eight-paragraph memorandum about the Electricity Bill, and we had a glossy pamphlet, with coloured pictures, from the Post Office. The present Opposition have had much fairer treatment than that.
The most important aspect of this matter is that the NEB subsidiaries employ directly 330,000 people, and about another 100,000 are employed in supplying companies. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had their way, a lot of these people would lose their jobs. It would be a most disastrous tampering with the activities of the NEB.
I should like to see a real expansion of the activities of the NEB. I understand that, of the extra money to be borrowed, £2,000 million is for the purpose of promoting the efficiency and competitiveness of British industry. This


is really needed. I hope that no Opposition Member will suggest that we can be particularly proud at the moment of British industry, which is lagging behind most of its competitors.
There are many reasons for this, and I am prepared to accept the suggestion that it is partly due to over-manning and to industrial troubles, but I suggest to the House that most of the problems of British industry are due to the inefficiency of management. There are too many self-perpetuating boards of directors. Some directors are voted on to boards only because they own large blocks of shares. Often they are completely incompetent. Chief executives often hold their jobs because they have inherited their fathers' shares in the companies.
There is far too much inefficiency in industry and I think that the Bill will go a long way towards making a contribution to enable the efficiency and competitiveness of British industry to be improved. More importantly, I suggest that the Bill will contribute much to reducing unemployment. The amendment, if it were agreed to, would grievously hamper the activities of the NEB. That would not be surprising, because Opposition Members have voted consistently for the past five years against measures to reduce unemployment. I hope that the House will have the good sense to ensure that they do not achieve their purpose this time.

Mr. Hal Miller: I cannot remember whether the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has supported the Freedom of Information Bill, but I assure him that I share his enthusiasm for looking at the whole of the relevant correspondence, following the revelations of Sir Douglas Wass, and I would certainly support the hon. Member in any efforts he made to ensure that it came to light.
I cannot, however, support the hon. Member in his contention that the amendment is a threat to jobs. It proposes a very minor reduction—what might even be called a probing reduction—in NEB expenditure in order to try to get some information out of the Government. The amount of reduction proposed in the amendment, £300 million, is less than the £575 million proposed in the Bill for contingencies.
We are not talking about closing British Leyland. I am proud of British industry and I do not knock it, or its management or its work force, in the way that some Labour Members do. Let us have no talk about the amendment being a threat to employment. That is absolute rubbish.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would be done with the money were the NEB to sell off some of its activities. There is a very short answer to that question. There would be less call on the taxpayer. This is something that I have been pressing on the Government, not only for other NEB companies but also in regard to British Leyland activities.

Mr. Cronin: The hon. Gentleman's argument is rather naive. If the NEB were to sell any of these portfolios, there would come a moment when it received a cheque from the stockbrokers. How would that help to reduce taxation?

Mr. Miller: If the NEB were turning its money over, it would not be requiring continual extra huge sums of money, with no accountability whatever to this House. That is what the amendment is about. Even from British Leyland there should be a contribution towards its own capital investment.
It is very interesting that I received through the post this morning from SP Industries Limited a communication on exactly this subject, dealing with the future of British Leyland's Prestcold Holdings, from which it is quite plain that that enterprise and its future strategy cannot continue to be linked with and be dependent on funds made available for the modernisation of the motor car industry in this country. That is a very concrete and immediate example in rebuttal of the hon. Gentleman's point. There is no reason why the NEB should not be turning over its assets. We very much wish, for example, that the same thing was happening in new towns and in various other fields of Government activity. But I must not stray, Mr. Deputy Speaker, outside the bounds of the amendment.
We have to get the amendment quite clearly into perspective. We are looking for a great deal more information from the Government. These global sums of hundreds of millions of pounds are being ballooned around the Chamber. Let us


get them into the context of the taxpayer. I believe that the expenditure of £3 billion would raise the threshold tax for every taxpayer in this country by £10 a week for starters. It is equivalent to about 15 per cent. VAT. These are very large sums of money indeed, and they must impinge very directly on everybody's take home pay. That is what we are talking about here.
Having put this into context, I want to consider briefly the operations of the NEB. It is quite clear that the NEB will have to continue in some form or another, but it does the NEB no credit to be party to an operation of this description. This is a bogus prospectus for raising funds. No sufficient detail is given. The contingencies item alone would be enough to laugh it out of court if the NEB were seriously trying to look for finance for its operations. Some details would have to be given. We shall be coming in the next amendment to the NEB's corporate plan. This measure does the NEB no credit, and that saddens me, as one who has supported part of its operations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) raised the very important question of the creditors of Cambridge Instruments. This is a question which has been asked for some time. What is the status of creditors of NEB companies? I take it that the guarantees that are included in this greatly increased limit do not extend to guarantees to creditors. The Government must make up their minds on the position of creditors of NEB companies. At the moment we have only the statement that the NEB will behave as a reputable holding company. That does not clarify the position sufficiently. When I pressed the Secretary of State on this, when the subject was last debated, he said that those words had been"advised ", and that he could not go beyond them or modify them in any way. The time is rapidly approaching in regard to Cambridge Instruments when the Government will have to go beyond those words.
In proposing this amendment, we seek to draw out of the Government exactly what these funds are for. All we seek to do is to limit the amount of the contingencies. We are not seeking to limit the amount of the real funds. We are trying to get from the Government what

their position is on self-financing, the turning over of these assets, and the creditors.
The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin)—who I notice has been unable to withstand this assault—raised once more that hoary old myth that all that is needed to improve British industry is more investment. That is clearly not so. We need to make better use of the capacity we already have and to restore fuller utilisation. Any recent survey shows that our utilisation of capacity is woefully inadequate, which is why our cost structure is so bad. We also need to increase our productivity. Just pouring in huge additional sums, as is presently proposed, is not an answer to the problem. That is why I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the amendment.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: I should briefly like to add my name to those of my colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller), who have supported this amendment.
Since the passage of the Industry Act 1975, we have had ample opportunity to judge the success of the National Enterprise Board and, indeed, the operation of the Industry Act 1972 as substantially extended and changed by the legislation of 1975. By any objective reckoning, the performance of the NEB has been found wanting in financial terms and certainly in political terms. I believe the House must support the amendments that we have before us.
One of the most interesting—perhaps emotive, but nevertheless sincere—speeches during this debate was that of the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), who referred to his long experience in representing his constituency, which I know plays an important part in the annals of the Labour Party. He also referred to his close association with and representation on behalf of many industrial enterprises. During the course of his speech he said that he found it inconceivable that hon. Members could not respond in the fullest possible fashion to representation from collapsing industrial concerns, in their constituencies or elsewhere, and that they would be pressing as hard as they could to get such companies bailed out and save jobs.
I am bound to say to the right hon. Member for Jarrow—and he made


particular reference to the shipbuilding industry—that his assumption is wrong. We all want to see a thriving shipbuilding industry in this country. I, like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, have had the privilege of visiting Japan in recent years. One of the many companies that I visited there was Sumitono Heavy Industries Shipbuilding Subsidiary. What I saw there changed, and certainly developed, my own attitude to the question of financial assistance and support for shipbuilding. I saw there vast acreages of factories where steel was rolled out, where numerically controlled machine tools carved up lengths of steel, where automatic welding devices were employed almost entirely in the construction of ships and vast cranes moved together sections of those ships. The only people who appeared to be employed were those pressing buttons in computer rooms and those who, at the end of the day, swept up the bits of steel which had been left on the floor of the factory.
That description may not be welcomed by Labour Members, but what it meant to me was that there is no way, simply by improving the productivity of labour in this country, that we will begin to compete with automated industries such as that.
6.15 p.m.
By pumping money—whether by the NEB or by the various Industry Act schemes—into companies merely to subsidise and maintain those companies in productive manufacturing industry which simply cannot compete in an international market, we are only storing up greater problems for ourselves in the future. Therefore, although I recognise that the right hon. Member for Jarrow has more experience than I of the history of these matters, I venture to suggest that I have more concern for the long-term future. I believe that major changes are needed.
I am not a nineteenth-century Liberal. I do not believe that there have to be sudden changes in policy which cause industries to collapse. However, I believe that there must be a radical period of change over the longer term, certainly over the next 10 or 20 years, if we are at least to maintain our standard of living in this country. Experience over the last 10 years has shown that unemployment, in shipbuilding, mining and agriculture, amounted to over 1 million yet this figure

has been more than made up by new employment over that some period.
In the short term, and regionally, of course there will be problems within that overall unemployment figure. But what it shows is that, if we have a reasonably buoyant economy, alternative jobs can be found over a period of time. I think that our energies, and indeed the extent to which Government's provide support and financial assistance for industry in the future, should be directed much more to new and growing areas of industrial enterprise than to those which are encountering greater and greater problems.
As somebody who, I am sure like every other hon. Member, has queued at the Stationery Office for the first publication of the Official Report of the debates in Committee on this Bill, and as one who has followed the proceedings with great interest, I expected to see, in the initial discussions of the amendments by the Committee and today a really detailed exposition of why this extra money is needed.
As a Back Bencher who has not been so closely involved in these matters so far, I am bound to say that there has been no adequate explanation. In simple terms, as I understand it, the NEB has already spent or committed over £830 million. Private sector loans amount to £1·2 billion, and a further £700 million will be required for British Leyland. Over and above that, the provision for hundreds—indeed thousands—of millions of pounds, by way of loans and contingent liability on the taxpayer, provided for in the Bill, is excessive and imprudent.
I ask hon. Members what can be the reason for this greatly raised financial limit and why was it that the Minister of State was unable in Committee to budget for the way this money was to be spent? As he gave no indication of how the NEB was to spend this money, fears arose in my mind that the real reason might be a much greater economic problem which lies ahead for the country. That is a fear which, I think, has been predicted in only one major newspaper—the Financial Times—and the increasing impression is that we are moving into another recession. I hope that is not true, but there are indications


in terms of falling demand, interest movements, industrial activity and investment, that a period of recession lies ahead. I sincerely hope that this is not so, regardless of who wins the next general election. If it is to be so, there will be many more companies circling round the Whitehall money pot looking for funds and hoping to be bailed out.
If the Bill really amounts to a provision for a major source of finance to bail out companies over the next three to five years which suffer from a recession induced by the economic policies of the present Government, I feel that the Government should say so. Without a more adequate explanation, the one I have given is the only one I can imagine. I find very little argument, either politically and financially, for supporting the terms of the Bill. To the extent that my hon. Friend's amendment is in no way a wrecking amendment but one which simply seeks to reflect the budgetary requirements of the NEB over the years which lie ahead, it seems to me to be eminently worthy of support. It will receive my support and, I hope, that of my hon. Friends.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): I rise to urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject these amendments. They have one simple purpose, namely, to emasculate the activities of the NEB and to curtail its time scale of operation. We think that that will certainly result in unemployment and in less investment of the kind that has been ascribed to our competitors. We believe that it would lead not to the regeneration of British industry, which it desperately needs, but to the kind of backward philosophy and backward thinking towards industry that has been reflected in the speeches of Tory Members this afternoon.
Despite all that they said, Tory Members have not told the House which companies they would not support. Would they not support Rolls-Royce, or British Leyland, or Alfred Herbert? For all the opposition that we have had to the NEB and its borrowing powers, a great number of Tory Members who have been loudest in their denunciation of the NEB and this Bill have also been

very loud on behalf of their constituents. They have written to my right hon. Friend and myself asking if they can have NEB projects in their constituencies, and have made sure that they have told the local newspapers at the same time.
It therefore does not do for Conservative Members to come here this afternoon and criticise the Bill and the NEB, while at the same time wanting to make sure that anything it does goes to the benefit of their constituents. The numbers of Tory Members who have asked for Inmos to be located in their constituencies now constitute a very long list indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thome)—unfortunately he is no longer with us—asked what the Conservatives will do with the NEB. What is their attitude towards it? They have not spelt that out, nor have they spelt out their attitude towards Rolls-Royce or British Leyland. Many constituents who are represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House can only wonder and worry in the absence of any pronunciation of a definite policy about the NEB. The constituents of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) will particulary have to worry.

Mr. Hal Miller: Since the Minister referred to my constituents, will he kindly confirm that the reduction of £300 million that we have proposed is less than the contingencies that are provided for and in no way affects any current NEB operation? If that is incorrect, will he for the first time give us the correct figures?

Mr. Huckfield: It is rather difficult to reply to an ad hoc intervention of that sort. The hon. Gentleman may be prepared to make those kinds of reductions, but he knows that others of his hon. Friends certainly want to make far more substantial reductions. We know where they want their axe to fall.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Will the Minser at least concede that in moving the amendment I specifically added up the figures relating to the NEB and said that our amendment was to delete the amounts on top of British Leyland and Rolls-Royce? That was the purpose of the


amendment. The Minister need not address himself to an amendment that has not been moved.

Mr. Huckfield: That makes it even more worrying, because we can now see exactly what Conservative Members want to do. They want to curtail severely the activities of everything that the NEB wants to do.
If we look at the level of expenditure that has so far been allocated to the NEB—about £275 million a year for the next five years—we get the figure of £1,375 million to which hon. Members have referred. If we look at the existing borrowings of the non-wholly owned subsidiaries, we get a total of slightly less than £550 million. Of course, that can be projected over a period of five years, to about £1,500 million. That means that the sums about which we are talking are of very much the same order of magnitude as those with which the last Administration came to the House in 1972 in connection with the Post Office, the Electricity Council and the electricity industry. We are dealing with precisely the same kind of magnitude, except that their figures were at 1972 prices.
When one reflects on the paucity of information that we had when the House debated those figures, and on the paucity of information that we were then given by the Conservatives, one realises that it does not do Conservative Members any kind of credit to talk in the way that they have done this afternoon.

Mr. Michael Marshall: rose—

Mr. Huckfield: I want to answer some of the points that hon. Members specifically made. On top of the figures that I have mentioned, we can project over the next five years about £50 million in guarantees. Then we have the figure of £575 million which one can allocate for contingencies. Although Conservative Members made a great feast of that this afternoon, what they do not seem to have regard for—what they seem so conveniently to neglect—is the fact that that figure represents a mere 3 per cent. of aggregate turnover for the NEB during that period.
I should have thought that that 3 per cent. of aggregate turnover for the period about which we are talking was a very prudent size of contingency allocation to

make. Certainly, if the NEB were not to make that kind of provision we could expect criticism from both sides of the House.

Mr. Nelson: rose—

Mr. Huckfield: I want to answer some of the specific points alluded to by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) referred to the sterile debate that we had in Committee. I can only say that he certainly joined in, and eagerly participated, because he voted with the Tories every time. Had there been a more independent and objective analysis on his part, I believe that he would have been more fitted to make the kind of comment about sterile debate that he made this afternoon.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that he is attributing to me a word that I have never used, either in Committee or this afternoon? I have never suggested that we had a sterile debate. I described it—I still do—as an artificial and contrived confrontation, provoked by the silly figures in the Government's Bill.

Mr. Huckfield: Whatever the hon. Gentleman called it, he certainly took an active part in it, along with the Tory Party.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who unfortunately has left our company, went through the whole of his speech apparently not realising that between one-third and one-half of the money about which we are talking will be coming from private sector finance. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill, or whether he understands it, but he ought to understand that we are not proposing to allocate the whole of the totals to the public sector borrowing requirement. Had the hon. Gentleman read the Committee proceedings and understood the Bill he would realise that a significant proportion of the finance that we are discussing will come from private sector contributions.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—I can only hope that he will not leave at this moment—talked about the State getting into horse racing. In view of his description of the totalisator board, I hope that he will not forget that it was a Tory Government who set it up in 1961. I hope that he will not


forget that the board includes such well known"Socialists"as His Grace the Duke of Devonshire and Nigel Broackes, who heads Trafalgar House, which is well known for its contributions to Tory Party funds. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the track record of his party in intervening in such matters as horse racing does not correspond with what he is saying this afternoon.
6.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) asked me for the latest figures on NEB borrowings. As at 28 February £666 million was outstanding against the existing limit. About £170 million was committed by the National Enterprise Board, which will count against the limit. Four million pounds constituted loans guaranteed by the Board. Forty-eight million pounds constituted borrowings of wholly owned subsidiaries. These figures fluctuate from time to time, and there is a slight difference between the figures as at 31 December 1978 and 31 January 1979. Because they fluctuate, some of the figures will be slightly lower.
The hon. Member for Arundel also mentioned Cambridge Instruments. The provision of further capital for such a company is primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of the NEB in the first instance. No proposals have been put before my right hon. Friends and myself at present.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) paid tribute to the activities of the Board, but I wish that hon. Gentlemen had paid more attention to the information that my right hon. Friends and I have provided to the House this afternoon. Not only did we provide the"Facts and Figures"document resulting from the Committee stage; my right hon. Friend has taken great trouble

Division No. 91]
AYES
[6.35 p.m.


Adley. Robert
Bendall, Vivian
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bradford, Rev Robert


Alison, Michael
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Brains, Sir Bernard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Benyon, W.
Brittan, Leon


Arnold, Tom
Berry, Hon Anthony
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Biffen, John
Brooke, Hon Peter


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brotherton, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Blaker, Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Baker, Kenneth
Body, Richard
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Banks, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul


Beith, A. J.
Bottomley, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Bell, Ronald
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Buck, Antony

to see that British Leyland's interim account statement is available in the Vote Office. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will peruse that and the accompanying press release, including the chairman's statement.

Michael Edwardes, referring to the breaking of the £3 billion barrier in revenue, states that
 In doing so we pushed up exports to a record £910 million making us Britain's biggest net earner of foreign currency in manufacturing industry and biggest vehicle exporter.
The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) said that we get nothing for our money. When a company such as British Leyland has a revenue of £3 billion and records an achievement of £910 million in export earnings, it will not do to say that.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much cash British Leyland has had from the taxpayer and what it has returned to the taxpayer in dividends?

Mr. Huckfield: If the hon. Member for Chingford studies the accounts that we have made available he will see that it is considerably less than the figures to which I have referred. Before making such an interjection, the hon. Gentleman should study the information that we have placed before the House. That is unfortunately not the hon. Gentleman's only ill-informed comment this afternoon.
We reject these amendments. They would curtail the activities of the National Enterprise Board and prevent it from carrying out the investment that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) rightly says British industry desperately needs. We resent that restriction on the National Enterprise Board, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the amendment.

Question proposed, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 273.

Budgen, Nick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Penhaligon, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Percival, Ian


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pink, R. Bonner


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hurd, Douglas
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Channon, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Churchill, W. S.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
James, David
Prior, Rt Hon James


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rathbone, Tim


Cockcroft, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rees-Davis, W. R.


Cope, John
Jopling, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cormack, Patrick
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhodes James, R.


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Critchley, Julian
Kilfedder, James
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Kimball, Marcus
Rifkind, Malcolm


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Drayson, Burnaby
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sainsbury, Tim


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Nigel
Scott, Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Elliott, Sir William
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Colin


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian
Shersby, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Loveridge, John
Silvester, Fred


Fairgrieve, Russell
Luce, Richard
Sims, Roger


Farr, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McCusker, H.
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Spence, John


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sproat, Iain


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Madel, David
Stainton, Keith


Fry, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marten, Neil
Stanley, John


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mates, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maude, Angus
Stokes, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawby, Ray
Stradling Thomas, J.


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Goodhew, Victor
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Peter
Tebbit, Norman


Gorst, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moate, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gray, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D.


Grieve, Percy
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Trotter, Neville


Griffiths, Eldon
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grimond, Rt Hon J
Morgan, Geraint
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Grist, Ian
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Viggers, Peter


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Waddington, David


Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wakeham, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Hannam, John
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neubert, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Newton, Tony
Wells, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Nott, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley
Whitney, Raymond


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wiggin, Jerry


Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow West)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Page, Richard (Workington)
Younger, Hon George


Hicks, Robert
Paisley, Rev Ian



Hodgson, Robin
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Michael Roberts and


Hordern, Peter
Pattie, Geoffrey
Sir George Young.


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey




NOES


Abse, Leo
Armstrong, Ernest
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)


Allaun, Frank
Ashley, Jack
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Anderson, Donald
Ashton, Joe
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Bates, Alf
Grant, John (Islington C)
Orbach, Maurice


Bean, R. E.
Grocott, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ovenden, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hardy, Peter
Padley, Walter


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Park, George


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Parker, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Parry, Robert


Boardman, H.
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Pavitt, Laurie


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Perry, Ernest


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Home Robertson, John
Price, William (Rugby)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hooley, Frank
Radice, Giles


Bradley, Tom
Horam, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Huckfield, Les
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Buchanan, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hunter, Adam
Roderick, Caerwyn


Campbell, Ian
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Canavan, Dennis
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Greville
Rooker, J. W.


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roper, John


Carter, Ray
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ryman, John


Cartwright, John
John, Brynmor
Sandelson, Neville


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sedgemore, Brian


Clemitson, Ivor
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Selby, Harry


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sever, John


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Judd, Frank
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Conlan, Bernard
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Corbett, Robin
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cowans, Harry
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sillars, James


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Crawshaw, Richard
Lamborn, Harry
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Cronin, John
Lamond, James
Snape, Peter


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Spearing, Nigel


Cryer, Bob
Lee, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stoddart, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Litterick, Tom
Stott, Roger


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin


Deakins, Eric
Lomas, Kenneth
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Luard, Evan
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dewar, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dormand, J. D.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McKay, Alan (Penistone)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dunnett, Jack
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tierney, Sydney


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Tilley, John


Edge, Geoff
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tinn, James


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McNamara, Kevin
Tomlinson, John


English, Michael
Madden, Max
Tomney, Frank


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Magee, Bryan
Torney, Tom


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tuck, Raphael


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Marks, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Faulds, Andrew
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Meacher, Michael
Ward, Michael


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mellish, Rt hon Robert
Watkins, David


Flannery, Martin
Mikardo, Ian
Watkinson, John


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Weetch, Ken


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Weitzman, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wellbeloved, James


Ford, Ben
Molloy, William
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred
White, James (Pollok)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Whitehead, Phillip


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Whitlock, William


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morton, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


George, Bruce
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King



Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Newens, Stanley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Ginsburg, David
Noble, Mike
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Gould, Bryan
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Gourlay, Harry
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Halloran, Michael

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wise, Mrs Audrey



Woodall, Alee
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Woof, Robert
Mr. James Hamilton and


Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Ted Graham.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 2, at end insert:
' such additional limit shall be subject to the laying before Parliament of the National Enterprise Board's current cash flow forecast '.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 5, in page 2, line 2, at end insert:
' such additional limit shall be subject to the laying before Parliament of an up to date examination of both the investment record and future investment plans of the NEB by the Public Sector Economy Unit in the Treasury '
No. 6, in page 2, line 2, at end insert:
' such additional limit shall be subject to the laying before Parliament of an up to date examination of the prospects of both British Leyland Ltd and Rolls-Royce Ltd by the Public Sector Economy Unit in the Treasury '.
No. 7, in page 2, line 2, at end insert:
' Such additional limit shall be subject to the laying before Parliament of the latest trading results (if necessary in the form of unaudited accounts).'.
No. 8, in page 2, line 2, at end insert:
' Such additional limit shall be subject to the laying before Parliament of the National Enterprise Board's latest corporate plan.'

Mr. Lamont: All the amendments deal with information about the NEB being made available to the House. They make the provision of finance conditional upon the production of certain documents and information—the corporate plan of the NEB, cash flow forecasts, the latest trading results, and the updating of the"Facts and Figures"memorandum that the Department has provided about the NEB. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 deal with the publication of the review by the Treasury's public sector economy unit. That is the unit with which Sir Douglas Wass has been connected and for which his memorandum was produced recently.
My hon. Friends and I are amazed that the Government should ask Parliament to vote these huge sums of money without making available much more information, but there is embarrassment on the Government Benches about that. The only defence of their position is that in the past, under Conservative Govern-

ments, nationalised industries have occasionally raised large sums of money for capital investment and that that is comparable to the present matter. At least in the nationalised industries it was known upon what industries the money would be spent. In this case, Parliament is being asked to spend money without knowing whether it will go on areo-engines, computers or medical services in the Middle East.
There is another difference between nationalised industries and the NEB. The nationalised industries are called upon to answer to the Select Committees of the House. They have periodically to give the House information about what they are doing. That is not so with the NEB. We have taken up that point time and again in Committee. As long as the NEB exists—we have our doubts about that—there should be a relationship with a Committee of the House. Sir Leslie Murphy argued strongly against that. He argued with the PAC that he should not be forced to come before it. His argument was that responsibility to the Minister is responsibility to Parliament. I do not believe that to be the case and I do not believe that the House regards answerability to a Minister to be the same thing as answerability to the Chamber or to a Committee of the House.
In Committee we repeatedly pressed for information. The Under-Secretary of State took our breath away with the absence of any definite information. At one point, he boasted that he had devoted three paragraphs to describing the activities of Inmos, British Leyland and Rolls-Royce. What he did not tell us was that each paragraph consisted of one sentence. He simply read out the names of the investments of the NEB and fell back on the usual device of saying that there was a full debate a year ago and that the matters had been frequently raised at Question Time. But those questions were not answered at that time, either. We think that the House is entitled to more information than has been given hitherto about the activities of the NEB.
The Minister of State, Department of Industry appeared to be embarrassed about the matter. After the thoroughly


inadequate answer of the Under-Secretary of State the Minister promised the Committee more information. That was contained in the"Facts and Figures"document. The Minister wrote to each member of the Committee and said that he hoped that we would regard the document as being the rough equivalent of a prospectus.
We thank the Minister for that information, but it does not take us far forward. A prospectus in the case of a commercial company does not deal with the past only; it gives an indication about the future—the profits to be expected and the areas into which the business will venture. There are reasons why one should not push the analogy with a prospectus too far, but I do not believe that there can be a remote comparison unless more information is provided about the future of the NEB and its expected profitability.
In the amendments we have attempted to put forward a series of choices of documents which would provide more information. We are not wedded to any one of them or to all of them, but, for example, why cannot the House have more details about the corporate plan of British Leyland? We understand from written answers that there are two corporate plans—a short-term one and a long-term one. Why have no details of those been provided?
Corporate plans, with confidential material removed, have been presented to the House. Last year we received the NEB's comments on British Leyland's corporate plan. Labour Members are addicted to corporate plans and the presentation of blueprints. One would have thought that they would want to rush to the House with information on the future of the NEB.
In the"Facts and Figures"document a number of figures have been provided about British Leyland's market share and productivity per head. Those figures have already appeared in papers, but it is good to have official confirmation of them. However, what is missing more than anything else is an official comment upon them. What is the Government's view of the progress of British Leyland and the achievements of the NEB in managing the investment in British Leyland?
We were told that there would be a review of British Leyland last November

and every November. There has been no explanation of what has happened to that review. One would have thought that all those statistics compiled for the Standing Committee could be presented. Why cannot the Government give their views on it in the review? Why is there no explanation of what has happened to the review?
Another amendment deals with the trading results of the NEB. I appreciate the difficulties of compiling up-to-date trading results for a conglomerate that consists of many businesses with different year ends, but, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) pointed out, it is sharp practice to come to the House within weeks of the year end of the NEB and ask for these vast sums of money. If the NEB had waited a few more weeks the year end account would have been produced. There has been no satisfactory explanation for that and one can only draw the obvious conclusion from the omission.
It is two and a half years since the NEB came into existence and there is still no target rate of return set for Rolls-Royce. Why is that? Why do the NEB find it so difficult to work out the target rate return for Rolls-Royce? We know that it is a long-term business and we have read the chilling comments of Sir Douglas Wass. He has been a dominating figure in the debate. However, even if it is a long-term business one would have thought that the management of Rolls-Royce would have a target rate of return. If the management has a target rate of return, why can it not be agreed with the Government and why can the House not know what it is?
7 p.m.
We hope that our fears about Rolls-Royce will prove to be unfounded, but we have heard too many optimistic statements about Rolls-Royce in recent years. We remember the present Secretary of State for Energy saying that Rolls-Royce had won the"contract of the century ". The only trouble was that the terms of that contract were ruinous. That is what led Rolls-Royce into difficulties. Now we have the comments of Sir Douglas Wass, who said:
 It is inherently a risky project and, even on optimistic assumptions, is not expected to break even until 1993.


There is something precise about the use of 1993, which makes one sceptical. I am surprised that Sir Douglas did not say"15 March 1993 ". Anything that is that precise about what is to happen in 1993 ought to be treated with considerable scepticism.
We have no information in"Facts and Figures"about Inmos and the microcircuitry investment. Some Labour Members talk about the NEB's involvement in Inmos as though that, by itself, justified the existence of the Board. I thought I heard the Minister of State say"That is true." To listen to the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends, one would think that British industry was doing no work in microcircuitry and that the only developments in that area were coming from the NEB. That illustrates the foolishness and shortsightedness of politicians who seek to make judgments on these matters.
Many hon. Members did not know what was happening in microcircuitry until the NEB started its work. However, we then discovered that there were many firms developing standard chips and a number developing the 64K chip which is allegedly to be Inmos's money winner. Much is happening in this area, and much was happening long before the NEB entered the business. All that has happened is that the discussion has become more political and that politicians have become aware of the work and begun to talk about it. Many people are still extremely sceptical about the NEB's activities.
Inmos is meant to produce the 64K chip. It intends to leap into that degree of technology, but we have read in The Economist that ITT is already produsing the 64K chip from its world headquarters in Kent and that Motorola plans to produce the 64K chip at its factory in East Kilbride. Many people are sceptical and suspicious about what the Board is up to.
I was fortunate to have sent to me some of the comments that appeared in a recent publication of the American magazine Electronic News. It printed a number of comments by leading business men in this country and all over the world about the Inmos venture.
Dr. Ian Shepherd, the managing director of Ferranti Electronics, another NEB

company, said, of the NEB's venture into microcircuits.
 They are starting in a country that only accounts for 4 per cent. of the world market and contains between 1 or 2 per cent. ' of the IC manufacturing capacity. As a result they are going to start slower and become actively involved much later than the Americans and the Japanese, and in this market, time is essential…All I can say is that I'm glad we're not in their business ".
He predicted an uncertain future of falling prices for standard circuits and rising competition and said:
 We have no intention of following them into that ".
Dr. Melvin Larkin, of Motorola, said that for Inmos to succeed it needed
 something exceptional to offer. If all they make is 64K RAMs, then their timescale is just all wrong, since it will take them at least three years to get into major production.
I could read many of the other comments of those in British and international business who are extremely worried and sceptical about what the NEB is doing. We believe that there ought to have been much more information provided in Committee, in"Facts and Figures"and in this debate about the activities of the NEB.
Another amendment refers to the publication of documents from the public sector economy unit. Sir Douglas Wass's criticism of the Government covered some of the investments of the NEB. He referred specifically to the Rolls-Royce project, but his argument is applicable to everything that the NEB is doing. We are ploughing massive resources into areas of low return. The words of Sir Douglas would have been denounced if they had been uttered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), but Sir Douglas's view sounds remarkably like that of my right hon. Friend. Sir Douglas said:
 The startling and disturbing conclusion is that we have been accumulating prospective losses of real resources at a rate Caster than the growth of national income in this country.
In the name of job creation, we are putting increasing amounts of money into areas of lower and lower returns. The irony is that that will not save jobs, because the money has to come from other, competitive enterprises, but it goes into enterprises that, in the long term, will not be viable.
The Government wanted to put £1·3 billion into industry in a matter of a few months. The Treasury stopped them. We must be grateful that there is still at least one healthy spot of reaction in Whitehall. The Government wanted to buy votes at the cost of creating grave problems for the next Conservative Government.
The history of State intervention and of agencies like the NEB has not been impressive. State investment has not been successful. That is why we believe that the remarks of Sir Douglas Wass are all too near the truth.
The point of all the amendments in this group is to establish a better relationship between Parliament and the NEB, while it exists. The PAC has claimed that it is the Committee to which the NEB should report. We subscribe to the view that there ought to be a Committee to which the NEB makes regular reports. The Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies have to open their books to the PAC. How can we justify the same provision not applying to the NEB?
It is no answer to say that the SDA includes some environmental and industrial estate activities. The PAC is able to look at the investment activities of the SDA, as well as at its environmental activities. It is no answer to plead that the NEB is a different sort of body.
As long as the Board exists we would not be advocates of Parliament interfering on a day-to-day basis with its commercial decisions, but the NEB ought to be compelled to report regularly to Parliament and it ought to provide much more information when it asks Parliament for huge sums for unspecified purposes. The House is entitled to more information, but we have so far been treated with something bordering on contempt. I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendments.

Mr. Tebbit: I shall centre my remarks upon amendment No. 6, and relate them particularly to the question of the obligation which would be laid on Rolls-Royce and the Government to produce figures showing what is going on in that company. Everyone knows that there have been some expressions of concern about Rolls-Royce Ltd. over recent months, due principally to the ambitious nature of

the programmes in which it is engaged. These programmes will consume large amounts of capital. By their nature, they not only contain technical and financial risks but are also long-term projects. It is therefore clear that the return on the cash invested will not come at any early date.
It is worrying that views of the project seem to be circulating within Whitehall. If the House were to agree to amendment No. 6, we would be able to clear up the matter. I make my case for that amendment inevitably by referring, like many hon. Members, to the memorandum by Sir Douglas Wass. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) has pointed out, Sir Douglas said that the RB211-535 project is an inherently risky project that is not expected to break even until 1993. My hon. Friend suggested that this was a very precise date. I suggest the reason was that someone said"Not in less than 15 years, sir"and that this memorandum was based on a remark of that sort made in 1978. It is a natural sort of remark to make. It is difficult to be more precise about these matters for reasons I will relate.
This project will require investment, generated internally and from the National Enterprise Board, of a capital cost of £250 million to £300 million according to the Treasury. The project, again according to the Treasury, in today's terms, is expected to make a loss of between £80 million and £170 million. The point at issue, which can be resolved only if we insist on the terms of amendment No. 6, is to have an up-to-date examination of the prospects of Rolls-Royce Ltd.
The Treasury obviously has a different set of figures from those that are circulating in the Department of Industry. If that is not the case, we must assume that Department of Industry Ministers came to the Dispatch Box advocating the launching of this project as being commercially viable while they had a brief in their hands saying that it was expected to lose between £80 million and £170 million. We must presumably accept that Ministers would not be so dishonest as to do that.
We are reduced, therefore, to assuming that the Treasury and the Department of Industry have different financial


assessments of the results of an investment made by the National Enterprise Board in Rolls-Royce Ltd. and that this has not been made available to the House of Commons.
The amendments are precisely designed to ensure that in future that sort of information is available to hon. Members before we make this investment through the National Enterprise Board.
I do not want to argue the case one way or the other for this investment. It is an extremely difficult case to argue, but we are entitled to know how decisions were made in Government and in the NEB to make the investment. It is fairly common knowledge that Sir Kenneth Keith refers in semi-private gatherings to the consequences of exchange rate fluctuations between the dollar and sterling. He goes so far as to attach figures in relation to the profitability of Rolls-Royce and, therefore, of the National Enterprise Board for each cent of movement in the sterling-dollar parity. We have never been given those figures by Ministers. They must be available. I could quote them, but I do not think it is appropriate to do so since Rolls-Royce Ltd. may not want those figures to be widely broadcast, although I suspect that the figures are broadly known to most people in the business. It is extremely damaging that the Treasury's figures should be left to be seen by the customers of Rolls-Royce Ltd., by its competitors and by the public without Members of Parliament being able to discuss whether those figures are accurate.
7.15 p.m.
The Minister must know, but the only way he can now convince us about whether the Treasury's figures are correct is for him to agree to reveal the Department of Industry figures and the Rolls-Royce figures. That is the objective of amendment No. 6. If that does not happen, we may find Rolls-Royce accused of dumping in the United States market and customers may be afraid that the engine will not continue. It may be found that customers fear that the price of spares will be pushed up in order to cover the losses. All this may happen because we cannot get at the facts of the matter. Unless Ministers find some way of clearing up this matter, any Member of this House would be compelled to vote for

amendment No. 6 in defence of the Rolls-Royce company and of the National Enterprise Board, let alone defence of the taxpayer and the taxpayer's money which is being sunk—I hope that is only a financial term, not to be understood in the sense of losing it for ever—in Rolls-Royce Ltd.
I expect that the Minister, in his reply, will indicate that he is happy for the House to know whether the figures on which he commended the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 project to the House are different from the figures being circulated by the Treasury. I hope that he will go further and accept that this House should not in future have to rely on leaks of Treasury papers to discover that hon. Members have been misled, presumably by accident or incompetence, by Ministers at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Richard Page: I want to make only a brief contribution to the debate. I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 6 and 8 which are typical of the Second Reading, the Committee stage and today's proceedings. They are a cry for help and information about what the NEB is up to. Page 11 of the Department of Industry guidelines for the National Enterprise Board, published in 1977, deals with the Government oversight of the NEB. Three sections catch the eye. The first states:
 Each year, the NEB shall prepare, and submit to the Secretary of State, a Corporate Plan setting out their strategy for the following years.
I would like to ask a straight question, which has been asked before but to which we have not had an answer. Did the Secretary of State have laid before him a corporate plan for 1979? The document goes on:
 As part of their planning cycle, the NEB shall provide annually an investment and financing programme covering the period of the Public Expenditure Survey, for consideration by the Department in conjunction with the Treasury…
Has that survey been carried out? Has that planning cycle been put before the Departments? I particularly want to mention the part of the document which states:
 The annual discussions will also enable the Department of Industry, in consultation with the Treasury, to set a ceiling to the amount of Government funds the NEB will receive by way of advances…


Has the NEB presented these factors to the Secretary of State? Has it done so for this year, for last year, or has it just gone ahead and spent money as and when the Government dictated or as the Minister recommended? I shall willingly give way if the Minister wishes to say that the corporate plan has been put before the Secretary of State. There is silence. I hope that question will be answered in the Minister's winding-up speech.
Much play has been made of the fact that many hon. Members have written to the Secretary of State requesting consideration for their constituencies for Inmos plants. When the announcement was first made, it struck hon. Members as a new advance. Many hon. Members naturally wanted their constituencies to get in on the ground floor. It is only as information becomes available that we begin to find out how much is going on. Many hon. Members now question the viability of Inmos projects. That part of the corporate plan should be brought before us.
I do not blame the Government for appointing P and A Consultants of Birmingham to evaluate the plants and sites. I do not blame them for producing those consultants as a buffer between themselves and Members of Parliament who will be approaching them. But I feel that Inmos has been waved as a flag before an election. Therefore, it is the duty of the NEB and of the Department of Industry to inform the country about what is involved in an Inmos plant. What will it bring in terms of jobs? What will be its future viability and profitability?
It is a matter of concern when one hears companies—not only companies in this market—say"Leave that alone. Go into the applications of the silicon chip. Do not get into the manufacturing side." As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) said, some of those who are saying that kind of thing have considerable experience in this line of country.
In Committee the Under-Secretary of State said that the corporate plan may be part of the planning cycle but that it may not be relevant to the increase in financial limits that we are discussing. We have a paradox. How can we have

a corporate plan which is irrelevant to any increase in financial limits?
I come back to the point that I made earlier. This is purely electoral flag-waving to be dragged round at the general election, particularly in the regions and marginals, as a treat in store.
The Minister of State sent us the further details which he promised. But those details do not take us much further down that particular path. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said that the money that the NEB is receiving could be argued to be squeezing out the private investment sector. The more money that is taken out of the economy in taxes, the less that can go into private investment. Therefore, the argument could be advanced that investment from the private sector is failing altogether.
If we could look at the corporate plans which we should have before us, we could gauge how much the NEB will take part in industrial productivity. According to a reply to a recent written question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if we take away North Sea oil and look only at our industrial production from the last quarter of 1973 to the last quarter of 1978, we see immediately that we are 4½ per cent. down. All other countries without the benefit of North Sea oil—for example, Canada, the United States and Germany—are 5 per cent. to 12½ per cent. up. Where will the NEB lead us? Will it produce the increase in productivity that we need to pay for all our various social requirements? Can anyone blame my hon. Friends for demanding more details?
I feel that we tend to argue against each other when we really want industry to improve. I have not been a Member of this House very long, but I have noticed that there is a tendency for"stable door"type debates. We debate everything after the horse has bolted out into public pastures to be nurtured by public money. Our parliamentary procedures and lack of accountability to Parliament may have been a great system in 1890, but it is certainly showing cracks in the facade in the 1980's. The Government must be less indifferent—almost arrogant—towards the House and stop sailing on their own course. They


must give us the details. The information requested in the amendments should be provided.

Mr. Hal Miller: I wish to speak briefly in support of the general spirit of these amendments without going into the details of each one. At stake is the question that more information should be provided before more money is voted. Whatever form that may take is not as important as the principle involved.
I have always supported an NEB-type institution because I wished operations of that nature to be removed from the day-to-day political inquisition. But, as a corollary to that, we must expect a greater degree of openness than we have had from the NEB about its plans and accounts.
The amendment deals specifically with the corporate plan. We must have some information on the corporate plan so that we can see how it ties in with the Government's plans and industrial strategy. We want more information on how it works together with the Government's strategy, the sector working party and so on. This information should be provided. Otherwise, there will continue to be political nit-picking, but with soundly-based fears that the strategy is not coherent and does not correspond.
Before providing more money, we need more information. After the money has been spent, we need more insight into how it has been spent. It is not good enough that the NEB is not subject to scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) spoke of analogies with the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency. The defence has always been that the NEB is responsible to the Secretary of State and that he in turn is responsible to Parliament. But we can never get information from the Secretary of State and we can never exercise our responsibility or authority over him. I believe in a greater degree of freedom and commercial confidence for NEB operations, but, as a corollary, we must have better information before the money is provided and the right of inspection after the money has been spent.

Mr. Michael Marshall: It might be helpful if at this stage I were to try to

pull together some of our thoughts, recognising that the Minister of State, who is now happily restored to the bosom of his industrial family after his time away dealing with the emergencies, and so on, will have a great deal of ground to cover. Therefore, perhaps I should summarise some of the points which concern us.
I shall not seek to reiterate the valuable contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), Workington (Mr. Page) and Redditch and Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) who followed clear and concise lines of questioning to which I hope the Minister will address his mind.
In the context of the task which the Minister of State has recently undertaken it would be helpful if he would indicate—I appreciate that it may not be easy to do so off the cuff—his impression of the impact of the emergency, particularly the road haulage dispute, on companies within the NEB. This is a relevant matter which should affect the operating results. It is reasonable to ask for the Minister's impressions based on his recent experience.
7.30 p.m.
These five amendments represent the ultimate heart-cry from the Conservative Benches. Time and time again when debating this Bill we have been thwarted in our effort to obtain the information that we need for a proper assessment of the Bill. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) will agree that an organisation which wished to provide for contingencies of £115 million a year would be laughed out of any auditor's office. That is the measure of the misleading exercise in which we are involved. That is why the lead amendment by dealing with cash flow forecasts faces the reality.
The reality is that, if we do not have a realistic view of past performance such as we have called for when we come to the final tranche of money we shall feel the need to pin down even more precisely what the NEB is doing. We shall want to see its expected requirement and what its overall operating results are likely to yield in relation to the kind of investment programme that it is undertaking.
For the same reason, on amendment No. 5, the review of investment record and


future plans is or the highest importance. The slightly sinister feeling that we have about these proceedings is that Minister after Minister has spoken only of expenditure and made practically no reference to the profit record of individual companies.
We have had helpful information about the latest return on capital for NEB overall, but this consolidation of figures raises a worrying concept. The next annual report and accounts of the NEB is, tragically, only a few weeks away. That means that yet again we are struggling with inadequate information so close to the event. I should like the Minister of State to assure us. Dare we hope that the individual profit figures of the various NEB companies will still be provided? I hope that, in the consolidation of figures, we are not moving away from individual profit figures in relation to all NEB companies.
The arguments about the prospects of British Leyland and Rolls-Royce have been clearly made. The latest trading results cause us anxiety. The House is being invited to pass legislation approving the sum of £4½ billion on the basis of the only annual report and accounts which is available—to the year ending 31 December 1977. That was made available a year ago. We have to find a better way than that.
In looking at the corporate plan I can well understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. He will recall that on Second Reading we had two bites of the cherry. I asked both the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for details of the existing corporate plans, and about when they had been tabled. We asked about the proceedings of the Standing Committee, but we were given no answer. It was only from the answers to written questions on 9 February that I was able, at last, to establish the existence of the corporate plans.
I can understand why my hon. Friend has not had the opportunity to see those statements. If he had he would still, like me, be in the dark because all that we are told is that the existing corporate plans were tabled on 30 November 1977 and 13 November 1978 and are under the most general headings. The topics referred to are the financial implications of the

plan, the current policy issues, the corporate action programme and sectoral strategies. We cannot understand how the Secretary of State promises us that we shall see the comments of the NEB on British Leyland's corporate plan and yet we cannot get to the guts of that plan which has such a vital effect on the NEB.
I cannot understand why we cannot see the NEB's corporate plan, if necessary with confidential aspects removed, because it would have been helpful and relevant to the House. That this has been denied to us reflects the low-key style in which the Government are seeking to go through this measure. The fact that we have no properly quantified breakdown has been made clear again and again. I urge the Minister of State, even at this late hour to try to reassure the taxpayer.

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and to his hon. Friends for the way in which they have addressed themselves to these matters, quite apart from my gratitude for the generous personal remarks about myself. I place on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for the way in which he dealt with the Standing Committee. Having read the full reports of the Standing Committee I think that Opposition Members, as well as my hon. Friends, will agree that my right hon. Friend dealt with them most fairly and helpfully. They may have criticism of the Government as a whole, but my right hon. Friend did that Standing Committee proud.
The hon. Member for Arundel spoke of the Government's responsibility to the taxpayer. I would never seek to evade that. The Conservatives are hoping—I think that it is a vain hope—that they will be the Government before the end of this year. They will then have responsibility for the great principal companies held by the National Enterprise Board.
I appeal to the Conservatives to recognise that it is a matter of great importance that whatever partisan exchanges we have across the Floor of the House—exchanges from which I have never shrunk—we should not conduct our debates in such a way that if the Conservatives became the next Government their charge of these


great companies would be made more difficult for themselves and those companies. I put it to the Opposition that trawling through the most intimate affairs of Rolls-Royce and implying that there may be arguments in favour of saying that the company is dumping its products can do the company no good in its greatest market, the United States.
Rolls-Royce has been a publicly owned company for eight years. Under Sir Kenneth Keith, appointed by the Conservatives and retained in his appointment by the present Government, I believe that the company has made a remarkable recovery and is a tremendous credit to this country. It has broken into the North American market in a remarkable way. It has achieved a great success for this country in becoming the first aero-engine manufacturer ever to be chosen by the largest airframe manufacturer in the world to provide its lead engine for a new product.
I believe that without in any Way relaxing our vigilance on behalf of the taxpayer we must assist Rolls-Royce to achieve the kind of sales and the kind of return that its chairman believes possible. He believes that within the next 15 years there will be a market of £1½ billion for the 535 engine. That would be a great contribution to the revenue of this country. It would be a great contribution to employment in many parts of the country, and I do not regard that as an unimportant or ignoble objective of Rolls-Royce.
This Government did not go to Sir Kenneth Keith and say"We have got seats in Derby and seats in Scotland and seats in other places, please come along with a wholly uneconomic engine and say that you want us to fund it ". Anybody on the Conservative Benches who knows Sir Kenneth Keith knows what he would have said to us had we suggested that to him.
Sir Kenneth does not mince his words. He has proved to be the most tremendous salesman for his company and for this engine. He has great confidence in this engine and his recommendation came to the Government through the NEB, which, having examined the project, recommended it to us. We examined it again, and of course there were different departmental assessments. If every Government Department looking at a project

were to start with the same assessment and arrive at the same conclusions, what would be the point of having different Departments with different responsibilities? The Treasury, the Department of Industry and Rolls-Royce make their assessments. Comments will be made by the National Enterprise Board upon the Rolls-Royce assessment. Ministers will then decide their views, having examined all the assessments.
I have always wanted to ensure that the House obtains as much information as possible, but we must remember that Rolls-Royce—I am using it as a paradigm of the general question—is in competition with the two great American aircraft engine manufacturing companies. Those companies would be delighted to have access to the private commercial information of Rolls-Royce. Those companies have protagonists in the United States Congress who are longing to prove that Rolls-Royce is operating uneconomically in order to prevent Rolls-Royce engines being attached to the Boeing 757. Fortunately, such efforts have not succeeded. We are obliged to Boeing and Eastern Airlines for their support.
I recognise the wish of the House to have information—I want to accede to that wish as far as I can—but I cannot imagine that any other Parliament in the world would willingly place in jeopardy the needs of a great manufacturing company and a major exporter simply to conduct a partisan debate. I do not accuse the Opposition Front Bench of that. But when the House examines some of the information for which it is asking in its thirst for information it must recognise that if such information were published in the detail that is requested it could place in jeopardy the fate of a great British company.
I do not wish to be partisan about this matter. We are talking of a company which the Conservatives thought it right to rescue by placing it in public ownership. It has done well since then. It is now a great international company. It must not be hamstrung by pouring out confidential information so that Pratt and Whitney and GEC can lap it up and use it against us in the United States Congress.
I hope that the House will forgive me for delivering what appears to be a sanctimonious homily, but I deliver it to


the Opposition simply because they hope to become the Government. They will not thank the House if we impose upon a Tory Government the restraints that the amendments seek to impose.

Mr. Tebbit: I hope that the Minister will remember his homily later this year, when he is on the Opposition Front Bench. We did not produce the figures that resulted in accusations of dumping. They are the Treasury's figures. The Minister says that no other Parliament would ask for such figures. I suggest that he examines the Congressional record of what was asked of Lockheed before the United States Government assisted that company when it was in crisis as a result of the Rolls-Royce crisis.
The shareholders of the American General Electric Company and of Pratt and Whitney have a forecast of the profits that they can expect on the projects in which those companies have invested. We think that the Rolls-Royce shareholders should have at least that much information.

Mr. Kaufman: If the Opposition divide in support of the amendments, all constraints would be removed from me if I ever sat on the Opposition Benches, because the Tory Party would be saying that there is one sauce for the goose and another for the gander.
We are not dealing with a rescue. We are dealing with a viable company, which has been made viable as a result of the support of two Governments.
When Rolls-Royce required rescue it was nationalised after 17 hours debate in both Houses. During that debate we did not receive the information that is now requested. All we saw was a panic-stricken rush to the House by a Tory Government who said that this company was important and that we must save it. The House obediently nationalised it and it was later handed over to the NEB.
7.45 p.m.
If one examines a company such as Inmos, one sees that different types of evidence are involved. I visited many microprocessing companies in the Santa Clara valley a few months ago. I had discussions with leading executives and with the leading figures in the Stanford

Research Institute, which has enormous expertise and which is situated in the Santa Clara valley. Without exception, each executive told me that the NEB was right to go ahead with the Inmos project. They said that it was an important project for this country. One of the executives said that—although he believed that it would succeed—even if it failed it would be worth doing and be a great investment for the British taxpayer because of the infrastructure that it would create.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Conservative-controlled West Yorkshire county council, the Conservative-controlled Bradford district council and the Conservative-controlled Kirklees council are eagerly saying exactly the same? They say that the Inmos project is of vital importance and that it will provide jobs. They each want it in their area

Mr. Kaufman: They will get it in their area only over the dead body of the Conservative-controlled Greater Manchester council.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I could not believe my ears when I realised that the Minister had left the subject of Rolls-Royce. Is he saying that a responsible Opposition should press him no further for any information? Is he saying that it is wrong to seek an assessment of the potential profitability of this project? Does he agree that now we have had a leak from the Government of a Treasury assessment the least that we can expect is some response to the forecast?

Mr. Kaufman: That is absurd. Does the hon. Member wish Parliament to operate on leak and counter-leak? Just because somebody sends something in a plain envelope to The Guardian does not mean that I should distribute plain envelopes round the Chamber to provide assessments of different bodies. That is an absurd proposal.
We are anxious to provide information. However, we shall not provide information of a kind which will be embarrassing to Rolls-Royce as an international trader and one of the most important exporters in the country. If we were to do that the Opposition, if they became the Government, would


inherit something which they would wish that they had never started.
The NEB will be submitting the new Rolls-Royce plan to the Government in the light of decisions that are now being taken about financial arrangements. Much of the plan inevitably will be of a commercial and confidential nature. But when we have considered the NEB's report I shall put the Government's conclusions before the House.
It is an auspicious day to talk about British Leyland. Although its announcement today is by no means fully satisfying to anybody, it marks considerable progress. The Secretary of State received the NEB's report on British Leyland's 1979 corporate plan less than 24 hours ago. It is a lengthy document which requires careful study. Clearly, we have not had the time to study it. It would be absurd to try to comment on it or to disclose its contents in a piecemeal fashion. But the Secretary of State still hopes to be able to make a statement about the plan and to provide the House with a report on British Leyland before the Easter Recess.
I find somewhat troubling the text of some of the amendments. The body referred to in the amendment, the public sector economy unit, is an ad hoc body set up administratively. It would be absurd to make reference to it in an Act of Parliament when Sir Douglas Wass, if the fancy took him, could abolish it tonight. What would be the point of having that reference in those circumstances? The PSEU has not been operating for long. It was not operating when the Conservative Party was in Government. It was established only a short time after the Labour Party took office. It was part of the much greater controls on expenditure that have been introduced by the Government since the rocketing public sector borrowing requirement, which I am sure the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) repines over in his few sad moments.
Do the Opposition believe that it is wrong to have projects that create jobs? We do not accept that the two aerospace projects and the Rolls-Royce project were cooked up by the Government and forced on Sir Kenneth Keith and the board of British Aerospace. In fact, Sir Kenneth

and the board came to us with them. When we lose jobs in manufacturing industry it is a great problem to recreate them.
Nowhere was that more tellingly stated than in a speech made by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) almost a year ago. I have given the right hon. Gentleman notice that I shall quote from it. He referred to industries in difficulty and said:
 To those who say ' let them go to the wall', I ask what will happen to our balance of trade as a result?.. It is not sufficient to say that these companies should go to the wall.
The same people claim that other companies will spring up in place of those that do go to the wall. Where has this happened? We have lost 500,000 people from agriculture in the past 15 years because of mechanisation. There is every justification for that, but we have still not found jobs for those people. The Scots and the Welsh can tell us that because it is more evident in those countries.
All those concerned with industry know that to build a firm of any size takes at least a decade or two. Anyone who has had anything to do with regional policy knows the appalling number of firms needed in a region to employ 250 to 300 people."—[Official Report, 9 March 1978; Vol. 745, c. 1656–57.]
Those were wise words from the right hon. Gentleman. It is much easier to lose jobs than to create them. That is why I do not regard it as a derisory objective of Governments to create or safeguard jobs, even though the projects were not put forward with that object in view.

Mr. Tebbit: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall not give way at the moment. I am trying to reply to the debate.

Mr. Tebbit: Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid to give way?

Mr. Kaufman: The last thing in the world that I shall be afraid of is the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tebbit: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: No. I do not want to give way.
The definition of cash flow is not clear from the text of the amendment, and it would not be clear in legislation. There could be many different definitions of cash flow. Cash flow in relation to the National Enterprise Board, which is not


a manufacturing company but a holding company, would have a meaning entirely different from that of cash flow in a manufacturing company. The results would bear little resemblance to cash flow forecasts for an ordinary trading company. No commercial organisation, even when seeking to raise new capital, would make public its cash flow forecasts. Such forecasts are among the most sensitive pieces of information that a company can possess.
The Government are doing their best to provide information. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State provided a useful document for the House. We cannot accept that which is being requested in the amendment. Amendment No. 5 asks for the future investment plans of the NEB to be laid before the House. What a lunatic request. If the future investment plans of the NEB are requested to be laid before the House, that is asking that the world be told the companies in which the NEB seeks to invest. That would have a remarkable effect on those companies' shares regardless of whether the NEB decided to invest in them. If the NEB were to invest in them and it announced that intention months before doing so, that would force up the value of the shares. If it decided not to invest, the shares would still be forced up. That would be an extraordinary rigging of the market. Surely the Opposition do not want that.
I have mentioned the reasons why I hope that the Opposition will not press amendment No. 6. It has already been made clear that the corporate plan for the NEB is being considered by the Government. I hope that we shall be in a

Division No. 92]
AYES
[7.57 p.m.


Adley. Robert
Bottomley, Peter
Churchill, W. S.


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Alison, Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Arnold, Tom
Bradford, Rev Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clegg, Walter


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Brittan, Leon
Cockcroft, John


Awdry, Daniel
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Baker, Kenneth
Brooke, Hon Peter
Cope, John


Banks, Robert
Brotherton, Michael
Cormack, Patrick


Beith, A. J.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Costain, A. P.


Bell, Ronald
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)


Bendall, Vivian
Bryan, Sir Paul
Critchley, Julian


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Crouch, David


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Buck, Antony
Crowder, F. P.


Benyon, W.
Budgen, Nick
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Biffen, John
Bulmer, Esmond
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, John
Burden, F. A.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Blaker, Peter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Drayson, Burnaby


Body, Richard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Channon, Paul
Durant, Tony

position to make a statement about it. We have seen the corporate plan. It presents a detailed financial strategy. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make a statement on it in due course.

As I have said, we are anxious to provide information. We have provided a great deal more information than the Opposition did when in parallel circumstances. My right hon. Friend has provided an additional booklet even since the Bill was considered in Committee. I have made available in the House today, and to a number of hon. Members, the latest information that has come from BL. We do not shrink from providing such information. I shall provide as much information as I can.

The hon. Member for Arundel referred to the companies of the NEB. I assure him that I shall do my best to ensure that as much detailed and individual information as possible will be made available to the House apart from the Companies Acts reports, which will be made available automatically. We shall provide the information, but we think it unfair that the House should ask for great companies to be hamstrung in their international competitiveness and place a halter on the activities of the NEB. We shall provide as much information as we can, but we hope that the House will refuse to insert into the Bill amendments that would be damaging to not only the NEB but to many great companies of which the NEB has charge.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 274.

Dykes, Hugh
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, Rt Hon James


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kilfedder, James
Raison, Timothy


Elliott, Sir William
Kimball, Marcus
Rathbone, Tim


Emery, Peter
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Eyre, Reginald
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knight, Mrs Jill
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Knox, David
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Farr, John
Lamont, Norman
Rhodes James, R.


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Ridsdale, Julian


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawson, Nigel
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fox, Marcus
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Ian
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Gardiner George (Reigate)
Loveridge, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Luce, Richard
Sainsbury, Tim


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott, Nicholas


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Glyn, Dr Alan
McCusker, H.
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Macfarlane, Nell
Shepherd, Colin


Goodhart, Philip
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Shersby, Michael


Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Silvester, Fred


Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sims, Roger


Gorst, John
Madel, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
 Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marten, Neil
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mates, Michael
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol
Spence, John


Grieve, Percy
Maude, Angus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Griffiths, Eldon
Mawby, Ray
Sproat, lain


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stainton, Keith


Grist, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Mills, Peter
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stokes, John


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Molyneaux, James
Tapsell, Peter


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Monro, Hector
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hastings, Stephen
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Tebbit, Norman


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, Geraint
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Townsend, Cyril D.


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Trotter, Neville


Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hodgson, Robin
Mudd, David
Viggers, Peter


Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey
Waddington, David


Hordern, Peter
Neubert, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Newton, Tony
Wakeham, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wall, Patrick


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Walters, Dennis


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John


Hurd, Douglas
Page, Richard (Workington)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Paisley, Rev Ian
Whitney, Raymond


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Parkinson, Cecil
Wiggin, Jerry


James, David
Pattie, Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Penhaligon, David
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Jessel, Toby
Percival, Ian
Younger, Hon George


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Peyton, Rt Hon John



Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pink, R. Bonner
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr, Anthony Berry and


Jopling, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Sir George Young.


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)



NOES


Abse, Leo
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Allaun, Frank
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Buchan, Norman


Anderson, Donald
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchanan, Richard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Armstrong, Ernest
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Campbell, Ian


Ashley, Jack
Boardman, H.
Canavan, Dennis


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cant, R. B.


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Carmichael, Neil


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Carter, Ray


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bradley, Tom
Cartwright, John


Bates, Alf
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Bean, R. E.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Clemitson, Ivor

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cowans, Harry
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rooker, J. W.


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roper, John


Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Judd, Frank
Ryman, John


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kerr, Russell
Sedgemore, Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Selby, Harry


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kinnock, Neil
Sever, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lambie, David
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Deakins, Eric
Lamborn, Harry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dempsey, James
Lee, John
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Doig, Peter
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Silverman, Julius


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Litterick, Tom
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Snape, Peter


Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Eadie, Alex
Luard, Evan
Spriggs, Leslie


Edge, Geoff
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


English, Michael
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Stoddart, David


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McCartney, Hugh
Stott, Roger


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Strang, Gavin


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McElhone, Frank
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Evans, John (Newton)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Madden, Max
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tierney, Sydney


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Tilley, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tomlinson, John


Forrester, John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Tomney, Frank


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Torney, Tom


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Meacher, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mikardo, fan
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ginsburg, David
Molloy, William
Ward, Michael


Gould, Bryan
Moonman, Eric
Watkins, David


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred
Watkinson, John


Graham, Ted
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Weetch, Ken


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Weitzman, David


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morton, George
Wellbeloved, James


Grocott, Bruce
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
White, James (Pollok)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Whitehead, Phillip


Hardy, Peter
Newens, Stanley
Whitlock, William


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Noble, Mike
Wigley, Dafydd


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Oakes, Gordon
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Home Robertson, John
Ovenden, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Hooley, Frank
Park, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Horam, John
Parker, John
Woodall, Alec


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Parry, Robert
Woof, Robert


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Huckfield, Les
Perry, Ernest
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Phipps, Dr Colin



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. Bryan Davies and


Hunter, Adam
Radice, Giles
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. George Younger: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 6, leave out '"£500 million"and"£800 million"' and insert '"£250 million"and"£350 million"'.
The amendment is exactly the same as one which was debated in Committee and upon which there was a tied vote. In accordance with custom, the Chairman exercised her vote so that the amendment was not carried, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have very generously allowed us to debate it again.
The amendment refers to the extra money which the Government wish to give to the Scottish Development Agency under the Bill. As I said in Committee, it is right and proper that, when such huge extra sums of money are being asked for, any Opposition—and, indeed, any Members of Parliament confronted with it—have a right and a duty to inquire as to the reasons for the extra money required.
As the House will know, the SDA is not the same as the National Enterprise Board, although it has some powers which are similar to those of the NEB. It is important to bear in mind that the SDA, although it is a new body, has existed, in terms of most of its functions, for a very long time indeed. Most of the work done by the SDA has been previously done for many years by such bodies as the Scottish Industrial Estates Corporation, which has been running advance factories, and so on, in Scotland since before the War, by the Scottish Development Department, which organised the environmental improvement and clearance of sites, and so on, throughout Scotland for many years, and by the other agencies which have handed over some of their functions to the SDA, particularly the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas of Scotland, which had done excellent work for many years in helping small businesses throughout Scotland.
We are faced with a request by the Government to raise the limit of moneys available to the SDA from a maximum of £300 million at present to a maximum of £800 million. The amendment proposes that the maximum should be raised from £300 million to only £350 million, and not by the very large amount of £500 million extra.
If the SDA were in need of extra money, I should be the last person to

deny it to the SDA, if it could demonstrate the need for it, but the fact is that in the last full year reported in the annual report of the SDA, the usage of the funds towards its borrowing maximum was only £34 million. That is in the year 1977–78, as published in the SDA's last annual report. With the present limits, without any increase at all, it would therefore take approximately eight years for the SDA to use up the funds that it has at present, because it is clearly stated in the report that it has so far used only £147 million of the £300 million that it is entitled to use.
8.15 p.m.
We are faced with the position where the Agency could exist for eight more years on the present funds that it has—assuming a constant level of activity—without any increase at all. But, despite that, the Opposition are quite prepared to raise the limit by £50 million in order to give the SDA a little extra money to fall back on if times should change. The case has not been made, and the Minister of State did not make any case in Committee demonstrating that this money is needed.
I ask the Minister of State a perfectly specific question on this matter. Is it or is it not the case that the SDA has never yet had to turn down any proposition that it considered to be sensible and viable because of shortage of money? I should like the Minister of State to confirm to me that that is the case, because I am sure that it is. The SDA, in other words, has no shortage of funds and has on no occasion had to deny itself any investment that it thought was reasonable because of shortage of money, yet here we are being asked to give an extra £500 million over and above the SDA's present limits.
On the basis of the figure of £500 million, I calculate that at the level of activity that the SDA was carrying out in the year 1977–78, it would take at least 15 years for it to use up the funds that we are now being asked to vote to it. I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in all conscience that is a wholly unreasonable request to make of Parliament, even at a time when funds are not scarce and when there are not other demands on public spending.
The extra allocation of £500 million is money that is not available to be


spent on all sorts of other projects which hon. Members on each side of the House hold dear and on which they might wish to spend it. It is not available to improve the Health Service and it is not available to improve other facilities, such as education, for which many of us might have wanted to use it.
I have been so puzzled about this since the debates in Committee that I thought I had better ensure that there was not perhaps some great Government plan to expand the activities of the Agency so much that it would need much more money. The Minister of State, in Committee, hinted that it was his wish that the agency should spend a lot more money, and that that was one of the reasons that he wanted more money to be allocated to it.
I turn, therefore, to Cmnd. 7439,"The Government's Expenditure Plans ". On page 203 there is set out and analysed the expenditure that is within the Secretary of State's responsibility for a number of years ahead. It is true that there is not a particular column relating to the SDA. I imagine that that comes mostly within the heading"Trade, industry, energy and employment ". Even assuming for a moment that there are no other factors, not connected with the SDA, which may influence these figures in a different direction, one finds that the increase in spending in the coming years is extremely modest under this heading. For instance, for 1978–79, £113 million is allocated for this whole category. In the following year, 1979–80, it is £127 million—an increase of £14 million. The year after that, 1980–81, there is a drop by only £2 million to £125 million. The following year, 1981–82, there is a further drop of £2 million to £123 million, and in the last year that is mentioned here—1982–83—the amount goes up slightly by £2 million to £125 million. Therefore, there is hard and clear evidence in the Government's own White Paper on expenditure that they are not planning a vast increase in the expenditure of the Scottish Development Agency. We are therefore entitled to ask why the Government are now asking for this huge extra sum to be voted.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Does not my hon. Friend share my concern that these extraordinary figures take no account of any undistributed

profits? Does my hon. Friend think that there is some hidden loss which the Government are trying to keep from the House?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend may well be right. He may well have put his finger on part of the explanation, and I am grateful to him for making that point.
My object is to get information from the Minister by giving what I believe is the reason for this. It is a reason of which the House should be aware. From all this evidence it seems to me that the bringing forward of this demand for extra money to be made available to the SDA is nothing more than a public relations exercise. It is money which there is no possibility of this Government having to find, because they will go out of office this year. It is money which they are calling upon Parliament to vote without any knowledge of which Government will have to find the money, how it is to be spent, upon what it is to be spent or when it is to be spent.
It is simply a public relations exercise designed to give the impression that the Government who are presiding over the highest level of unemployment since the war—a level that has been sustained during all their time in office—are about to do something about unemployment in their dying days. It is a phoney prospectus. It does not mean anything. It is insulting the intelligence of the House, and, I believe, the Scots, to suggest that they will be taken in by this paper exercise of pretending that the SDA will somehow take off with this huge injection of funds.
The SDA will do no such thing. I hope that it will carry on with the valuable work that it does. I know that with the money it has already been granted by Parliament it has sufficient to carry out the work that it will be called upon to do. If the SDA ever should run short of money for valuable projects, I would be quite prepared to see that more money was given to it.
That is why this amendment has been put down. We put the amendment down so that the Minister could give an explanation as to exactly why the money is needed, what it will be spent on, and why, if it is to be spent, it is not recorded in the Government's White Paper on public expenditure. I hope that the Minister of State will give us the answers that he was


not able to give in Committee, and tell the House the full background to this request.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: This is a nasty and niggardly amendment, which presumably has been tabled as punishment to the people of Scotland for actually having voted in a majority for the establishment of a Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Iain Sproat: They did not.

Mr. Crawford: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) says that the people of Scotland, by a majority of those who actually voted, did not—

Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman did not say that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. We are certainly not going to have a debate on the results of the referendum.

Mr. Crawford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suppose that this amendment was only to be expected from the party that actually voted against the establishment of the SDA in the first place. I note, in passing, that a similar amendment has not been tabled about the Welsh Development Agency. I can only assume that the Conservative drafting machine has broken down.
It is essential that the SDA should have room to move. The argument produced earlier concerning the NEB, to the effect that perhaps the United Kingdom was holding a lot of the money to finance it, does not apply in Scotland. This morning, along with some of my hon. Friends, I had discussions with the Scottish Council (Development of Industry) which, I believe, is lobbying other parties in the House. One point that the Scottish Council made very forcefully was that at least some of the revenues from the oil in Scottish waters should be used for the regeneration of industry. I certainly think that some of the moneys from Scottish oil should be channelled into the SDA.
During the progress of the SDA Bill through the House two or three years ago, the SNP made clear that it wanted an annual running budget, which would help the SDA with its forward planning. Of course, the SDA has made mistakes. It is in the risk-taking business. Some of those mistakes were made in my own

constituency. Naturally, the SDA needs tighter monitoring of the projects in which it invests and, of course, it has had teething problems—no one will deny that. At the same time, it is my contention and that of my party that the SDA does not go far enough.
If we want an example of what can be done, we have only to look across the Irish Sea at the Irish Industrial Development Authority. Nevertheless, one of the great virtues of the SDA is that it has been totally approachable in a way that some private companies have not.
It is only fair to say that the buck stops with the SDA in relation to industrial development, unemployment and factory closures. In my constituency, the firm of Smedley's is proposing to close down at Blairgowrie, with the loss of 350 jobs. That is a large slice of the local economy. It may not be large in west central Scottish terms, but it is very large in the context of Perthshire.
When that closure was announced, I approached the SDA and got total help and co-operation from it, in a way that would not have been possible before the Agency was established. Therefore, the buck stops with the SDA. I can only hope that the Agency, together with the Scottish Office, will be able to do something about the potentially tragic situation in Blairgowrie.
With all its faults the SDA has shown itself to be a responsible body. I do not think that it will be showering vast amounts of money around if this Bill goes through. We should remind ourselves that there are many Smedley-type situations in Scotland. The SDA should be given the room in which to move. It should also be given the money. With that money it will have the tools to get on with the job of creating new employment and of regenerating industry in Scotland, which is sorely needed. The amendment must be resisted.

Mr. David Lambie: I was a member of the Committee that dealt with the Industry Bill. I should therefore like to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger).
It is good to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr Crawford) in his criticism of


the Tories for opposing the SDA. We know that on the Second Reading of the Scottish Development Agency Bill the SNP voted against the SDA. Had the SNP had its way at that time, a Scottish Development Agency would not have been set up. I suppose that converts are sometimes better than people who are brought up in the original faith. We are, therefore, grateful to have the support of the SNP in this instance.

Mr. Crawford: I think that we should get the record straight. The Scottish National Party voted for the establishment of the SDA on Second Reading. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that.

Mr. Lambie: I shall have to check that. My recollection is that the SNP voted against the SDA. I am willing to challenge the hon. Gentleman on that. I know that his memory is not very strong, and I believe that is the case in this respect. The case I make tonight is that the SNP voted against the Second Reading of the Scottish Development Agency Bill, but I concede that it might have voted for it during the Committee Stage.

Mr. James Hamilton: It voted with the Tories in Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that it might save a lot of time if I suspended the sitting for two minutes in order to get this matter cleared up. That would avoid the argument about which way certain hon. Members voted.

Mr. Lambie: I accept that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are one of the best Deputy Speakers that we have. If you are willing to do that I would be willing to accept it. However, as a Labour Member who always accepts the opinion of the Scottish Whip, if the Whip tells me that the SNP voted against the SDA in Committee I am willing to accept that advice.
I am also surprised that the hon. Member for Ayr added his name to the rogues' gallery of Tory Members who tabled this amendment. I have always considered the hon. Gentleman a sort of gentleman Tory, unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), whom I consider to be one of the nouveau riche—someone who comes from the working class and joins the Tory Party in order to get quick promotion. The hon.

Member for Ayr has always been an aristocratic Tory, who is connected with beer and all those other things that we in Scotland usually consider important. I always regard the hon. Member for Ayr, as he comes from an adjoining constituency, as a sort of gentleman. The hon. Member and I always take part in the various deputations that meet Government Ministers.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These references to personalities are getting a little out of hand. I suggest that the hon. Member sticks to the amendment before the House.

Mr. Lambie: I was about to come to the amendment. I was saying that the hon. Member for Ayr and I take part in all the various Ayrshire constituency deputations and delegations to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, seeking Government money to safeguard the declining industries in our area. As a county, Ayrshire is one of the unfortunate areas of Scotland that have been dependent on traditional Scottish industries. We had coal mining in South Ayrshire. That is nearly wiped out. We had shipbuilding in Ayr, Troon, Irvine and Ardrossan. That is now completely wiped out, with the exception of Troon, in my constituency. We had the railway workshops, which are now wiped out completely. We had steel, which also is very nearly wiped out, with the exception of the remnants in my constituency.
If there is one area in Scotland that has been hit hard by redundancies and closures, it is the area represented by me and the hon. Member for Ayr. We have taken part in more deputations to Ministers of both Governments than has any other hon. Member, trying to get Government money because there was no hope of getting private enterprise money into the area. We were prepared to accept Government money—I was prepared to accept even Tory Government money—to build up declining industries in our area. Despite that, in my constituency there is still an unemployment rate of 14 per cent. The rate in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ayr is still much higher than the Scottish average, and it is well above the British average. Despite all the money which Governments of both parties have


put into the declining industries of Ayrshire, we still have the highest rate of unemployment in Scotland.
I notice that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has just returned to the Chamber. I am glad to see him back because I am about to congratulate him. I am expecting great things from him on these and other matters in which I am interested.
If there is one area which has been dependent on Government money and investment, it is Ayrshire. That is why I am sorry to hear the hon. Member for Ayr tying himself up with the reactionary Tories from England who are attempting to stop the Government giving an additional £500 million to the Scottish Development Agency. If we are to reduce unemployment in Ayrshire, we can do it only with Government money. Private investors are not interested in putting money into manufacturing industry in Scotland. They tell us that we are now in Europe, too far away from the markets, and not in the so-called golden triangle. Industrialists are moving out of Scotland down into the areas where they can make the most profit in the central belt of Europe.
Our only hope in Scotland is Government money. That is why I am glad that the Government have given additional money to the National Enterprise Board to help our colleagues in England and Wales and an additional £500 million to increase the limits of the SDA to build up industry in my area.
There are only two industries in Ayrshire that are doing well. One is Ailsa shipyard, which was nationalised and is now part of British Shipbuilders. Thanks to the help of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office and Government money, we are assured of work right up into the 1980s. We are waiting for the bureaucrats in Brussels to clear the latest order for a dredger. If that comes to Ailsa shipyard, we are guaranteed work into the middle of 1980. If any other shipyard in Britain can say that, I am surprised.
Scottish Aviation would not exist had not the hon. Member for Ayr, myself and the other hon. Member for Ayrshire gone to the Labour Government and asked for it to be nationalised. The hon.

Member for Ayr is a gentleman Tory and realises that he sometimes has to forget his Tory principles when dealing with jobs. He was part of a deputation that met the arch Left-winger, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), who at that time was Secretary of State for Industry. He and I went down with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and others to ask for Scottish Aviation to be nationalised, and it was nationalised.
With the help of the Labour Government and British Aerospace we are floating the Jetstream production line. That guarantees employment in Scottish Aviation up to the mid-1980s. It employs 1,400 or 1,500 people, and I hope that the labour force will further increase to 2,600. Then I shall have returned to the position of two or three years ago.
The only two industries that are doing well and have a future in the area are supported by a Labour Government, but the hon. Member for Ayr has the cheek to say tonight that we do not need more money. He is correct—the SDA has not spent the money that it has been given—but the SDA is a new agency and has to gain confidence. I hope that the chairman, Sir William Gray, is successful in his selection conference and becomes a Labour candidate for one of the Glasgow seats, and goes to Europe. A new chairman might have the confidence to spend more money and get things going.
In Ayrshire, Massey-Ferguson is faced with 1,100 redundancies. In my constituency SKF(UK) announced this week 682 redundancies, and we already have 14 per cent. unemployment. The only hope for these industries is a Labour Government and Scottish Development Agency money or any other money under section 7 or 8 of the Industry Act. If we do not get Government money for Massey Ferguson or SKF(UK), there is no future. We already have 14 per cent. unemployment, and with these redundancies it will be over 20 per cent. That is at a time when, in the Garnock valley and other areas of my constituency, unemployment could already reach 25 per cent. because of the closure of part of the steel industry at Glengarnock.
I thought that the hon. Member for Ayr, knowing the unemployment problems, would tonight be saying"To hell


with the Tory Whip. I shall vote for the Labour Government in order to get this money. Without it these industries will die."
I am surprised that only two Scottish National Party Members are here. I am also surprised that the Scottish National Party yesterday gave the Government another fortnight, when a fortnight ago they gave them another fortnight. Yesterday the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) threw down the gauntlet for the Prime Minister, giving him only a fortnight. The SNP has said that if the Government do not do what it wants within a fortnight it will bring down the Labour Government. It will bring them down at a time when the result of a general election surely must be Margaret Thatcher and the Tories in power.

Mr. Crawford: I correct the hon. Member on one point. Earlier he said that the Scottish National Party had voted against the Second Reading of the Bill to set up the Scottish Development Agency. I refer him to Hansard of 25 June 1975, which shows that the SNP voted for the establishment of the Agency.

Mr. Lambie: I accept what the hon. Member says, but I shall check it. The point is that the SNP has thrown down the gauntlet to the Labour Government and treatened to bring them down. If it does that, and the Tories are returned to power with a majority of 100—as the public opinion polls indicate—it will be the death of industry in Scotland. There will be no hope for the people in Massey Ferguson and no hope for those in SKF(UK). There will be no hope for the steel workers in the Garnock valley. There will be no hope for any industrial workers in Scotland. The Tories will throw us to the wolves. They have made it clear that they see the future of Britain in Europe. I hope that the SNP thinks more of Scotland and its workers.
At the end of the day, this Labour Government have done well. They are doing the right thing for Scottish industry. I hope that we will push this Bill through in order to get the money to build up Scottish industry. This will achieve something that has not been achieved by the Tories or the private

investors. This is the only way in which we will solve the unemployment problem. That is why I hope that the Government will reject these amendments and push forward with the Bill. They should remember that the Scottish industrial workers are mainly Labour voters, and they deserve some hope.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has asked a number of important questions. He asked me specifically whether there had ever been an occasion when the SDA had to turn down any application because of lack of funds. It is certainly the case that the SDA has never had to do so yet, but that is not what we are talking about in this Bill. We are discussing financial limits against which future programmes can be planned, and we are telling the Agency the limits which will govern its medium and long-term planning. In fact, we are giving it a vote of confidence. We are not calling upon Parliament to vote any money at all. We are simply asking Parliament to fix the financial limits.
The hon. Member for Ayr also asked about the actual spending of the SDA. We indicated that on Second Reading. However, the most up-to-date figures available show that spending against the limit by the SDA now amounts to £78 million and the total committed is £177 million. I am sure that the hon. Member will have noticed that that is an improvement on the figures that I gave when we discussed this matter two months ago. Given the rate of spending that we expect—quite justifiably—the Agency could reach its present limit not in 10 or 15 years as the hon. Member says but in the next two or three years.
It has been said by the hon. Member that there is no good reason for the increases to the SDA to the extent that we are providing in the Bill. It is unthinkable to reject the opportunity of ensuring for the Agency the financial certainty that it needs to plan its programme for the next few years. In view of the confidence that the Government have placed repeatedly in the work of the Agency, it would be inconsistent to refuse that now. It provides the elbow room for the Agency to operate much more effectively.
8.45 p.m.
I was delighted when I re-read the speech made by the hon. Member for Ayr in Committee to see that he adopted a different tone towards the Agency from that of some of his hon. Friends. For some time I have thought that Opposition Members were adopting a niggardly attitude towards the concept of the Agency. There are some achievements that should be noted.
About £60 million has been spent or committed by the Agency on environmental and derelict land projects throughout Scotland. That has created about 5,550 jobs. Over 1½ million sq.ft. of advance and bespoke factories has been completed resulting in about 14,500 jobs and the potential for another 10,000 jobs. About 13,000 jobs have been provided by firms in which the Agency has invested. Therefore, more than 35,000 Scottish jobs depend upon the activities of the Agency.
I know that the hon. Member for Ayr is genuinely interested in small businesses. All hon. Members are genuinely anxious to assist in the development of the small business sector in Scotland. There have been difficulties, not just from the Government but often from the larger firms. However, the Agency is playing an important role in assisting small companies. It has invested about £2½ million in more than 200 small firms in Scotland and has provided technical and managerial advice to 200 more.
It was recently my privilege to open the consultancy services set up by the SDA. A recent survey of small firms showed that about 77 per cent. felt a need for outside assistance of some kind. That is a clear indication of the vital role of the Agency in the expansion of that important sector.
The Government took into account the environmental work, the factory work, the industrial investment and the work that the Agency does for small firms and decided to use the opportunity presented by the Bill to raise the Agency's financial limit. That is a firm demonstration of our confidence in the Agency's long-term future. The Government recognise the essential part that the Agency plays in Scotland's economic development
We are also mindful of the greater convenience in presenting the increase in the

limits of the three bodies together, so that the related questions of their finances can be considered at the same time and not piecemeal. The hon. Member for Ayr asked me to give an indication of precise projects. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) asked the same thing in Committee. That shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill. The increase in the financial limits as set out in the Bill will allow the Agency the elbow room that is needed well into the 1980s. The figures cannot be, and are not, related to individual projects. The planning of those is covered by the annual estimates of the Agency which are presented to the House and which we discuss in the Scottish Grand Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayshire (Mr. Lambie) expressed his concern about shipbuilding and steel areas and the environmental work that needs to be done in the east end of Glasgow. It may be that there is similar work to be done in the Leith area of Edinburgh. There is much such work that the Agency still has to do.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) mentioned the closure of the Smedley factory in Blairgowrie. That is a subject of great concern to the hon. Gentleman and to every hon. Member who is interested in these matters. The loss of 300 or 400 jobs in such an area will have a tremendous effect on the local economy. The SDA will be willing to help and the Scottish Economic Planning Department is anxious that something should be done and is having discussions with several interested parties. We had one such meeting today. We shall be more than happy to provide any assistance that we can to help the factory. It is a difficult area of activity, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, provided that those who wish to take over the factory will provide long-term and viable jobs, I shall be prepared to help.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayshire raised a number of problems. I am not sure that they were all associated with the agency, but he particularly indicated his concern about the Garnock valley. He will know the activity in which the Agency has been engaged in the Garnock valley and it was a little churlish of my hon. Friend to attack the chairman of the SDA as


he did. The chairman has had that responsibility for only a short time. There have been teething troubles, but the Agency has shown, through the leadership of Sir William Gray, a considerable interest in the problems of Scottish people and of the Garnock valley in particular.

Mr. Lambie: My right hon. Friend must have misunderstood me. I was urging that Sir William Gray should be promoted to Europe and that someone else should be appointed chairman of the SDA. I was not being churlish. I wanted to give Sir William a promotion.

Mr. MacKenzie: That is not the sort of promotion that I would want. The Agency is doing a worthwhile job, especially in areas such as Garnock valley. It has had teething problems, but it has been in existence for only two years and has faced similar problems to those encountered by the Highlands and Islands Development Board some years ago.
The hon. Member for Ayr said that increasing the limits made it more difficult for the Government to make funds available for social and welfare services. That is not so. The activities of the Agency since its inception have been additional to all other central and local government spending. The Agency is fundamental to our economic development and we must allow it the freedom to fulfil its obligations.
The amendment is niggardly. It does not give the Agency enough elbow room to continue its effective work. I hope that my hon. Friends will reject the amendment.

Mr. Younger: I thank the Minister of State for his reply and echo what he said about the Smedley factory in Blairgowrie. I hope that something can be done because it is a most serious problem.
We were greatly entertained by the contribution of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). His speech was a devastating indictment of the effects of five years of Labour Government on industry throughout Ayrshire. It was not my hon. Friends or I who took the decision in respect of Massey Ferguson at Kilmarnock. It was the Labour Government's economic policy that made its products difficult to sell. It was not the

Conservative Government, the Conservative Opposition or myself who made the Glengarnock steelworks run down. It was the Labour Government's failure to get their steel policy going properly. It is not under a Conservative Government that unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine has soared to record levels. It has happened under a Labour Government. His devastating indictment of his own party's performance is sufficient for me. I am happy to leave it at that.
I am grateful to the Minister of State for his explanation on most of the matters he mentioned. He still has not appreciated my point that the money is already there and nothing like spent. The Agency has plenty to keep it going for a number of years. The Minister admitted that for two or three years there is plenty money. I would have thought this was an unwise time to put in a lot of extra money.
I must disagree with the Minister on one issue. It is economically illiterate to suggest that, because this money is allocated to the Scottish Development Agency, it is not taken away from somewhere else. We are not magicians. We are dealing with hard economic facts. If the money is allocated to the SDA, rightly or wrongly, it is not available for anything else. It is no use pretending it is. We have, however, heard a better explanation than was given upstairs. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 7, at end add:
' such additional limit shall be subject to the laying before Parliament of the allocation between those funds required for investment purposes and those required for the remaining functions of the Agency.'.
In Committee and again on Report today we have been asking repeatedly what the additional funds are for. We want to know what projects the Minister has in mind when asking for this large increase in the financial limits of the SDA. We are asking for a prospectus. It was not forthcoming in Committee and it is not forthcoming today. Ministers on the Front Bench are behaving like the representatives of a Government of some spendthrift banana republic when


they come and ask for an extra £500 million for the SDA without producing any prospectus on the need for this money and the projects on which it might be used. It seems clear the demand for additional funds has not come from the Scottish Development Agency itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said, it is part of a public relations exercise by the Government on the eve of an election which cannot come too soon.
To explain the reason behind the amendment, it has been pointed out that there are two distinct functions of the Scottish Development Agency. There are what might be described as the inherited functions—the building of advance factories, the running of industrial estates and environmental work—and there is the investment function. It is not too difficult to imagine the sort of projects for which additional funds might be required to meet these inherited functions. While we would argue about the amount of the additional funds for these purposes, we would not argue about the principle or the need for this kind of work. The investment requirement, however, is of recent vintage and the investment function has a doubtful track record. It is not my purpose to repeat the points that have been made today and in Committee regarding the investment operations of the SDA.
The purpose of this amendment is to enable Parliament to distinguish between the two types of operation that the Agency carries out and to distinguish between the funds of the Agency in relation to its inherited and investment functions. If we had an allocation of this kind, we would be able to judge the significance of the investment function in the forward plans of the SDA. We would be able to relate the Agency's expenditure with the total amount of industrial aid being made available in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr has pointed out that the forward spending plans of the Government do not suggest that any great new funds will be available in Scotland.
9.0 p.m.
The fact is that financial assistance to Scottish industry suffered a severe cutback when the regional employment premium was withdrawn. So far nothing has

been introduced to take its place, despite the fact that a new variety of employment aid has been made available. The Minister must know that when we add together the new kinds of employment and industrial assistance available to Scotland today, we still find that less money is being spent. That shows how the Government are trying to paper over the cracks in their failed economic policy and to suggest that much more money is being and will be made available in future. But they cannot deny their own statistics which prove the contrary.
I believe that the investment function, which requires special skills, should be separated from the Scottish Development Agency. I am of the opinion that, in order to meet the needs of small business in particular, it might be better to have a Government-sponsored investment bank funded 50 per cent. by the Government and 50 per cent. by private enterprise. Such an investment agency would be better able to resist political pressures to save jobs in circumstances when it might be wrong to pour good money after bad. If only to give that kind of independence, such an agency would be worthwhile.
We cannot do that in the Bill, but the amendment would provide an important step in that direction. As such, it should be supported. I hope that it will be supported by the Scottish National Party, which should be anxious to have better control over public expenditure and to know the use to which public funds are being put in Scotland.

Mr. Jim Craigen: Given what the hon. Gentleman said, is not the import of the amendment that it calls for greater parliamentary scrutiny and accountability over the Agency's activities?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes. The amendment seeks to separate the investment function from the other functions of the Agency. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman understands the point that I am trying to make and I hope that he will support us in the Lobby.

Mr. Craigen: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman said that there should be less political influence in the activities of the Scottish Development Agency. Now he is suggesting that politicians have far too


easy access to the Agency. My experience is that the Agency looks twice before it spends its money.

Mr. Fletcher: That is not what I said. I was on a different point. I said that it might be better if the investment function of the Agency were separated so that investment decisions would be free from political interference. That does not mean that, when money is being made available, Parliament should not know how it is to be spent. The amendment, if accepted, would ensure that Parliament had better control over the spending of £500 million. We do not know how much is for the investment function as distinct from the traditional functions inherited by the SDA. It is a simple but important move in the right direction. It is a reasonable proposition. It will give Parliament more say in and control over how public funds are spent. For that reason alone, I hope that Labour Members—and the Minister, too—will give the amendment a fair wind.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) has made out an argument for the amendment. We were treated, perhaps, to an unveiling of the Conservative Party's plans for its next manifesto in the sense that there might be a division of the Scottish Development Agency into two sections: one, the old factories division, which used to exist, and the other the investment function which the hon. Gentleman suggested might best go into some new quango to be set up partly under private enterprise and partly State financed.
If such a body comes into existence what would be the attitude of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North to parliamentary control? Does he think that this new mixed body, partly publicly and partly privately financed, would be subject in its day-to-day workings to parliamentary scrutiny, or would it be free to take its own decisions on how public money is to be spent?
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman addressed himself to that proposition and I should like to hear from him about it. The hon. Gentleman said that, if Parliament had more opportunity to scrutinise the activities of the Scottish

Development Agency, it would be an improvement in itself. I think that he would have to tell us how it would be possible for Parliament to take control over the day-to-day workings of the Scottish Development Agency. Obviously Parliament would have a chance perhaps once a year, or even less, to discuss the investment policy of the SDA. As I see it, we can do that at the present through the Scottish Grand Committee discussions on Estimates.
My proposal in relation to amendment No. 10 is that this House is most unlikely to find the time to look at the way in which the Scottish Development Agency works. There is a further problem that the hon. Gentleman must examine. Over a period of years specialised agencies have been set up to take executive decisions and have been given criteria, statutory directives or financial targets by the House of Commons, on the basis that Parliament itself is unable to perform the work of executing the business.
If the hon. Gentleman does not accept that there should be these individual agencies does it not follow that he would require individual investment decisions to be taken not by agencies such as the SDA but by the Secretary of State for Scotland or indeed the Department of Industry? That would politicise the matter even further and would not, necessarily, be an improvement.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: To put it simply and briefly, the danger is that we shall not know what the money allocated in this Bill is to be used for. There is a £500 million additional limit, some of it for inherited functions and some for investment. The amendment, quite simply, provides that when funds are being made available and cash limits are being increased a distinction is created between the two. The other point I was making concerned how such an investment operation might run in the future. Perhaps a BP-type operation, that is, owned half by the Government and half privately, would be better able to make investment decisions without the incidence of day-to-day political pressures under which the SDA must be operating at present.

Mr. Wilson: I did not wish to be too critical in discussing the terms of the hon. Gentleman's amendment. When


someone tables an amendment it is worth while the House scrutinising it. There is an onus on those who propose amendments to persuade the House that the line which they are taking is correct. I was not sure about the line of argument being taken by the hon. Gentleman.
I understood that there was a fairly clear description of expenditure on the different operations of the Scottish Development Agency in its anual accounts. These accounts go further and show the individual holdings which have been acquired during the years, and give an indication of profits or losses. One of the arguments in favour of the Scottish Development Agency is that, when it has made a mistake, it has not tried to conceal it or to cover it up. It has reported it. One would expect the odd mistake to be covered up, but if an agency makes too many mistakes we should criticise it according to the standards which apply. It is a venture capital-offering institution. In the real commercial world mistakes will be made. The annual accounts will have the divisions which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North suggests should be written into the Bill.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: After the event.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member may say that, but in the real world Parliament will have to authorise money in advance to the Scottish Development Agency, otherwise the Agency will have to trot back to the House every time it wants to make an acquisition. It would then have to say"Please may I spend this money in setting up this firm, or acquiring the shares of another?"That would be impossible.
The best that the House can do is to improve the machinery for scrutinising the activities of the SDA. There may be an argument for saying that a Select Committee on Scottish affairs should examine that possibility. On a United Kingdom basis perhaps a Department of Industry Committee could be set up to examine what happens to these specialist agencies.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I do not disagree with the hon. Member's final remarks. We are allocating £500 million tonight. Perhaps £300 million or £400 million of that should be spent on the routine functions of the SDA and the

balance used for investment. To date the agency has spent less than £20 million on investment. Parliament should be involved in the advance allocation of money.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member is twisting the argument on its head. He says that, instead of restricting the activities of the Agency, the House should direct the Agency to spend more money on public investment. I go along with that argument, but it has come late in the evening. Perhaps on reflection, the hon. Member will not fully agree with what he has just said.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I listened with some care to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). I presume that he wishes to see that a proportion of the increased provision is devoted to investment. I am delighted that hon. Members are taking such an interest. Taken by itself, the proposition is commendable.
I cannot understand why, when every year we have an opportunity to consider the Supply Estimates and debate various White Papers, we need another opportunity to obtain expenditure information which has already been made available. I cannot see that there is any point in the amendment.
Deep down in his heart of hearts the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North does not like the SDA to have any industrial investment function. I have read with care the pamphlet prepared at the instance of the hon. Member and his hon. Friends on the future of the SDA. It does not encourage me to believe that there is much hope for the industrial investment side of the Agency if by some bad chance the hon. Member and his hon. Friends take over the government of the country.
Deep down Opposition Members do not like the SDA to invest. I have always been puzzled about that. I thought that the essence of the Conservative Party's philosophy was competition. I cannot understand why hon. Members complain when there is competition.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North complained about the Government's decision to abolish regional employment premiums. But in the Opposition's election manifesto they said that they would do that.
We want all the money that we can get for regional aid in Scotland. I am happy when we are able to do as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment did the other day, and extend the youth opportunities programme and the short-term employment subsidies. Such measures should be welcomed. But our suggestion that there should be limits of about £800 million is opposed by the Conservatives. I cannot understand why the Conservative Party wants to restrict the limits in such a niggardly fashion.

9.15 p.m.

It seemed that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North was suggesting that we should discuss the Agency's industrial investment case by case. That is what I understood, and I believe that that is the understanding of many of my hon. Friends. How can we foresee difficult situations? For example, only a short while ago, tribute was paid to the Government's

Division No. 93]
AYES
[9.17 p.m.


Adley. Robert
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Aitken, Jonathan
Critchley, Julian
Hannam, John


Alison, Michael
Crouch, David
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Arnold, Tom
Crowder, F. P.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Haselhurst, Alan


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hastings, Stephen


Baker, Kenneth
Drayson, Burnaby
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Banks, Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hawkins, Paul


Beith, A. J.
Durant, Tony
Hayhoe, Barney


Bell, Ronald
Dykes, Hugh
Hicks, Robert


Bendall, Vivian
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Higgins, Terence L.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hodgson, Robin


Benyon, W.
Elliott, Sir William
Holland, Philip


Biffen, John
Emery, Peter
Hordern, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Eyre, Reginald
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Howell, David (Guildford)


Body, Richard
Fairgrieve, Russell
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Farr, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bottomley, Peter
Fell, Anthony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hurd, Douglas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Brittan, Leon
Fookes, Miss Janet
James, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fox, Marcus
Jessel, Toby


Brotherton, Michael
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fry, Peter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Jopling, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Buck, Antony
Glyn, Dr Alan
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Budgen, Nick
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Kershaw, Anthony


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodhart, Philip
Kilfedder, James


Burden, F. A.
Goodhew, Victor
Kimball, Marcus


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Goodlad, Alastair
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gorst, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Channon, Paul
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Churchill, W. S.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Knox, David


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Lamont, Norman


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Gray, Hamish
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grieve, Percy
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Clegg, Walter
Griffiths, Eldon
Lawrence, Ivan


Cockcroft, John
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Lawson, Nigel


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Grist, Ian
Le Marchant, Spencer


Cope, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Cormack, Patrick
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Lloyd, Ian

attitude towards Smedley. Nobody foresaw those difficulties a few months ago. The Government and the Agency have to be able to act quickly. Sometimes it is necessary to act within days. It would not be sensible to have the Agency split up in the manner suggested by the amendment. The hon. Gentleman has gone further and suggested that we should proceed case by case. That makes no sense.

There is adequate opportunity for debate in the House on the Estimates. It is a matter for the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends to determine which subjects are debated, where they are debated and how they are debated. There is no purpose to be served in the House passing the amendment. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 282.

Loveridge, John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Luce, Richard
Page, Richard (Workington)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Paisley, Rev Ian
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


McCrindle, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil
Spence, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Pattie, Geoffrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Penhaligon, David
Sproat, lain


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Percival, Ian
Stainton, Keith


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Madel, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Marten, Nell
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stokes, John


Mates, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mather, Carol
Prior, Rt Hon James
Tapsell, Peter


Maude, Angus
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Mawby, Ray
Raison, Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rathbone, Tim
Tebbit, Norman


Mayhew, Patrick
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Mills, Peter
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Trotter, Neville


Miscampbell, Norman
Rhodes James, R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Moate, Roger
Ridsdale, Julian
Viggers, Peter


Molyneaux, James
Rifkind, Malcolm
Waddington, David


Monro, Hector
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Montgomery, Fergus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wakeham, John


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wall, Patrick


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Walters, Dennis


Morgan, Geraint
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wells, John


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Whitney, Raymond


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Sainsbury, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Scott, Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Mudd, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Neave, Airey
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Neubert, Michael
Shepherd, Colin
Younger, Hon George


Newton, Tony
Shersby, Michael



Onslow, Cranley
Silvester, Fred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Sims, Roger
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Page, John (Harrow West)
Sinclair, Sir George
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


NOES


Abse, Leo
Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Allaun, Frank
Concannon, Rt Hon John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Anderson, Donald
Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ford, Ben


Armstrong, Ernest
Corbett, Robin
Forrester, John


Ashley, Jack
Cowans, Harry
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crawford, Douglas
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Crawshaw, Richard
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cronin, John
George, Bruce


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bates, Alt
Cryer, Bob
Ginsburg, David


Bean, R. E.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Gould, Bryan


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Gourlay, Harry


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Graham, Ted


Bid well, Sydney
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Deakins, Eric
Grocott, Bruce


Boardman, H.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dempsey, James
Hardy, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dewar, Donald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Doig, Peter
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bradley, Tom
Dormand, J. D.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hayman, Mrs Helens


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dunnett, Jack
Heller, Eric S.


Buchan, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Henderson, Douglas


Buchanan, Richard
Edge, Geoff
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hooley, Frank


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
English, Michael
Horam, John


Campbell, Ian
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham. Sm H)


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Cant, R. B.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Huckfield, Les


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Carter, Ray
Evans, John (Newton)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cartwright, John
Faulds, Andrew
Hunter, Adam


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Clemitson, Ivor
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Flannery, Martin
Janner, Greville

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Stallard, A. W.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


John, Brynmor
Morton, George
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Stoddart, David


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stott, Roger


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Newens, Stanley
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Noble, Mike
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Judd, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Kerr, Russell
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Kinnock, Neil
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thompson, George


Lambie, David
Ovenden, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lamborn, Harry
Park, George
Tierney, Sydney


Lamond, James
Parker, John
Tilley, John


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Parry, Robert
Tomlinson, John


Lee, John
Pavitt, Laurie
Tomney, Frank


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Perry, Ernest
Torney, Tom


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Phipps, Dr Colin
Urwin, Rt Hon T. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Litterick, Tom
Price, William (Rugby)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Radice, Giles
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lomas, Kenneth
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Luard, Evan
Reid, George
Ward, Michael


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Watkins, David


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkinson, John


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Weetch, Ken


McCartney, Hugh
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Weitzman, David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wellbeloved, James


McElhone, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn
Welsh, Andrew


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
White, James (Pollok)


Maclennan, Robert
Rooker, J. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roper, John
Whitlock, William


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wigley, Dafydd


Madden, Max
Ryman, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Magee, Bryan
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Marks, Kenneth
Selby, Harry
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sever, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Meacher, Michael
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Woodall, Alec


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Woof, Robert


Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Silverman, Julius
Young, David (Bolton E)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Skinner, Dennis



Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Molloy, William
Snape, Peter
Mr. James Tina and


Moon man, Eric
Spearing, Nigel
Mrs. Ann Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 25 at end add—
 (8) In section 8(1) (d) for the words ' otherwise than under section 3 above' there shall be substituted the words ' including under section 3 above ' ".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this amendment we may discuss amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 25 at end add—
(8) In section 8(1) there shall be added:
' (e) considerations specified by the Secretary of State in respect of securities or other property transferred by the Secretary of State to the Board or its nominees under section 5 above '.".

Mr. Marshall: Throughout the whole of the debate we have consistently tried to get an undertaking from the Government to give us more information on

every part of the Bill. Tonight we give the Government one last chance to address their minds to these two amendments. As we made perfectly clear in Committee, these amendments cover matters where there is a fair conceptual argument about what should or should not be merged within the activities of the NEB. There should not only be the operating aspects of the NEB but it should also be made perfectly clear as to what should or should not be part of total borrowing. It is to that point that both the amendments are addressed.
I hope that we can consider these amendments quietly and briefly. We are trying to make progress because we recognise that there is other business in which hon. Members are interested. All we ask from the Government on both these amendments is an undertaking that


they will, once more, look at the conceptual merging of the inherited companies within the new borrowing limits.
These are perfectly simple matters and I ask the Minister tonight to give us a little gleam of light. If he is willing to do that, we shall perhaps be willing to withdraw the amendment on the basis that we shall have further opportunity when the Bill comes back from another place. Meanwhile, I would not seek to urge my hon. Friends to press the amendment to a vote if we have a prompt response from the Minister tonight.

Mr. Les Huckfield: I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose both amendments. We have debated them in Committee. The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) knows the effect that they would have. In fact, amendment No. 12 misses the point because, if he wished to do so, my right hon. Friend could still give a guarantee and that would not count against the NEB's borrowing limits.

Division No. 94]
AYES
[9.34 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Concannon, Rt Hon John
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Allaun, Frank
Conlan, Bernard
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Anderson, Donald
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Corbett, Robin
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cowans, Harry
George, Bruce


Ashley, Jack
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Ginsburg, David


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crawford, Douglas
Gould, Bryan


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Crawshaw, Richard
Gourlay, Harry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cronin, John
Graham, Ted


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cryer, Bob
Grant, John (Islington C)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Grocott, Bruce


Bates, Alt
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bean, R. E.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bidwell, Sydney
Deakins, Eric
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dempsey, James
Hayman, Mrs Helena


Boardman, H.
Dewar, Donald
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Doig, Peter
Heffer, Eric S.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dormand, J. D.
Henderson, Douglas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Home Robertson, John


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hooley, Frank


Bradley, Tom
Dunnett, Jack
Horam, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eadie, Alex
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Edge, Geoff
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Huckfield, Les


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Buchanan, Richard
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Hunter, Adam


Campbell, Ian
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Canavan, Dennis
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Cant, R. B.
Faulds, Andrew
Janner, Greville


Carmichael, Nell
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Carter, Ray
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Flannery, Martin
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Cartwright, John
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
John, Brynmor


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Clemitson, Ivor
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Ford, Ben
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Cohen, Stanley
Forrester, John
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Coleman, Donald
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)

On amendment No. 13, there is absolutely no reason why the transferred debts should themselves constitute a charge against the NEB's borrowing limit. The hon. Member for Arundel knows that. He knows their effect, which would be to diminish the freedom and investment powers of the NEB. Because of that, I would urge rejection of both the amendments.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I think that the Minister is yet again ignoring the argument that he himself concedes, which is that there is a capital debt here. However, we have said that we wish to make progress. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 260.

Judd, Frank
Newens, Stanley
Stott, Roger


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Noble, Mike
Strang, Gavin


Kerr, Russell
Oakes, Gordon
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ogden, Eric
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Kinnock, Nell
O'Halloran, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lambie, David
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lamborn, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lamond, James
Ovenden, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Park, George
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lee, John
Parker, John
Thompson, George


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Parry, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Pavitt, Laurie
Tierney, Sydney


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, Ernest
Tilley, John


Litterick, Tom
Phipps, Dr Colin
Tinn, James


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Tomlinson, John


Lomas, Kenneth
Price, William (Rugby)
Tomney, Frank


Luard, Evan
Radice, Giles
Torney, Tom


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Urwin, Rt Hon T. W.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Reid, George
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


McElhone, Frank
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Ward, Michael


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Watkins, David


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Roderick, Caerwyn
Watkinson, John


Maclennan, Robert
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Weetch, Ken


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Weitzman, David


McNamara, Kevin
Rooker, J. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Madden, Max
Roper, John
Welsh, Andrew


Magee, Bryan
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ryman, John
White, James (Pollok)


Marks, Kenneth
Sandelson, Neville
Whitehead, Phillip


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sedgemore, Brian
Whitlock, William


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Selby, Harry
Wigley, Dafydd


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sever, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Maynard, Miss Joan
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Mikardo, Ian
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Silverman, Julius
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Molloy, William
Skinner, Dennis
Woodall, Alec


Moonman, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Woof, Robert


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred
Snape, Peter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spriggs, Leslie



Morton, George
Stallard, A. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald



Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stoddart, David
Mr. John Evans.


NOES


Adley. Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Elliott, Sir William


Aitken, Jonathan
Buck, Antony
Emery, Peter


Alison, Michael
Budgen, Nick
Eyre, Reginald


Arnold, Tom
Bulmer, Esmond
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Burden, F. A.
Fairgrieve, Russell


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Farr, John


Baker, Kenneth
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fell, Anthony


Banks, Robert
Channon, Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Beith, A. J.
Churchill, W. S.
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bell, Ronald
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Benyon, W.
Clegg, Walter
Fox, Marcus


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cockcroft, John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Biffen, John
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fry, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Cope, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Blaker, Peter
Cormack, Patrick
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bottomley, Peter
Critchley, Julian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Crouch, David
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Bradford, Rev Robert
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Goodhew, Victor


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Goodlad, Alastair


Brittan, Leon
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gorst, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Drayson, Burnaby
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Brooke, Hon Peter
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Brotherton, Michael
Durant, Tony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dykes, Hugh
Gray, Hamish


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Grieve, Percy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Eldon

Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Macfarlane, Neil
Rifkind, Malcolm


Grist, Ian
Mac Kay, Andrew (Stechford)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Madel, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Hannam, John
Marten, Neil
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mates, Michael
Royle, Sir Anthony


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Maude, Angus
Sainsbury, Tim


Haselhurst, Alan
Mawby, Ray
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Scott, Nicholas


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hayhoe, Barney
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shepherd, Colin


Hicks, Robert
Mills, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Higgins, Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman
Silvester, Fred


Hodgson, Robin
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sims, Roger


Holland, Philip
Moate, Roger
Sinclair, Sir George


Hordern, Peter
Molyneaux, James
Skeet, T. H. H.


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Monro, Hector
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Spence, John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Morgan, Geraint
Sproat, lain


Hurd, Douglas
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stainton, Keith


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


James, David
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst' d&amp;W' dl'd)
Mudd, David
Stokes, John


Jessel, Toby
Neave, Airey
Stradling Thomas, J.


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Neubert, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Newton, Tony
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Jopling, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Tebbit, Norman


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow West)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Richard (Workington)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Kilfedder, James
Paisley, Rev Ian
Trotter, Neville


Kimball, Marcus
Parkinson, Cecil
van Straubenzee, W. R.


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Penhaligon, David
Viggers, Peter


Knight, Mrs Jill
Percival, Ian
Waddington David


Knox, David
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Lamont, Norman
Pink, R. Bonner
Wakeham, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wall, Patrick


Latham, Michael (Mellon)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Walters, Dennis


Lawrence, Ivan
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, John


Lawson, Nigel
Prior, Rt Hon James
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Whitney, Raymond


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Raison, Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Lloyd, Ian
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Loveridge, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Younger, Hon George


Luce, Richard
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)



McAdden, Sir Stephen
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McCrindle, Robert
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Sir George Young and


McCusker, H.
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Is it the wish of the House that the two sets of regulations on the Representation of the People be taken together? That is agreed.
Before these regulations are moved. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that they make detailed provision for the conduct of elections to the European Assembly. They do not deal with the principle of European Assembly elections or with the voting system to be used. Those subjects were dealt with in the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. They also do not deal with the date of the election, 7 June. That is the subject of the European Assembly Elections (Day of Election) Order 1979. Accordingly, these three matters fall outside the scope of tonight's debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are the regulations being debated together or separately?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I gave the ruling I asked whether it was the wish of the House that the regulations should be taken together. That was agreed without dissension. I hope that the hon. Member accepts that.

Mr. Wm. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that the Representation of the People regulations that we are discussing this evening were superseded by a new draft that was published or agreed on 6 March. However, the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which decided that the regulations had to be reprinted, are not available in the Vote Office. How on earth can we go ahead with the debate when we do not know why it was decided that they had to be reprinted?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am advised that had the Committee found that there were any objections, there would have been a rubric published to that effect. I understand that the details are basically the same and that the Committee found no fault with this substituted instrument.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I note what you have just told the House. Nevertheless, is it not unusual and undesirable that the House should take an instrument that has been the subject of consideration by a Committee when the report of that Committee is not available to Members? Of course we accept your assurance that the Committee has not reported adversely, but would it not be better for hon. Members to be able to satisfy themselves that such is the case by seeing the report in the Vote Office?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the adverse report relates to the previous instrument This is a matter for debate, not for order. The right hon. Member will find that this matter is in order, and therefore it is debatable now.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: On a different point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that there was no essential differences between the two sets of regulations on the Order Paper tonight. I believe that there is a great deal of difference. One is for the first-past-the-post system of election and the other for the proportional representation system. The Government went out of their way to ensure a different type of election in Northern Ireland; therefore it is very confusion to debate the two systems of election together.

Sir Anthony Royle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is not correct. You put the point about the two sets of regulations being taken together and the House agreed to that suggestion without any dissent. The matter was then raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and you pointed out, quite rightly, that the House had accepted that the two should be taken together. Therefore, surely the point of the hon. Member for Belfast, West cannot be allowed.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand from the exchanges so far that there is some doubt whether the document before us is the operative document that we are discussing tonight. You said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was no reason to believe there was any difference between the two documents, but surely we should not be asked


to discuss a document merely on the assumption that it is the correct one. Surely we should have the opportunity to satisfy ourselves by examining the two documents to see whether they are identical and whether we are debating the documents that we should be debating. Therefore, is it not desirable to allow time for Members to satisfy themselves on this point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is not one for the Chair.

Mr. David Stoddart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is most important to ensure that we have the proper documentation before us. I recall that when I served the Government as a Whip many objections were put forward—quite correctly—by the Opposition, who did their duty in seeing that nothing got through the House unless they knew what they were voting about. It seems that we should follow precedent. I remember precedents when the Leader of the House, who is a most reasonable and understanding man and a great democrat, who always wishes to ensure that the House discusses and votes on matters in a proper manner, with all the correct information, agreed to withdraw business from the Floor of the House so that Members could have the correct documentation properly printed. He thus ensured that we knew exactly what we were doing. This, in turn, meant good and plausible legislation.

Mr. John Lee: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not one way of resolving the problem be for you to be supplied with copies of the two documents, so that you would be able to read them out one after the other? We would then be able to compare them to find out whether there is a difference. It is not satisfactory to have an element of doubt. Even in relation to the slovenly standards that we normally apply to so-called European legislation, we cannot allow this slipshod way of conducting Government business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The only way in which the House can deal with the matter is during the course of the debate. If the House does not approve of the regulations, it can take the appropriate action.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The two draft instruments before us have printed at the top:
 Supersedes draft published on 31 January 1979 ".
From what you said earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I understand that the drafts published on 31 January have gone before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and that the Committee found no need to draw the attention of the House to any specific feature. Therefore, the four documents now in the Vote Office—including the two new ones—with the supersession printed at the top have not been before the Committee. Therefore, the Committee has not had the opportunity to examine any changes that there might have been. In view of the fact that there has been a second edition, there must have been some change.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If we pursue this any further, the matter will become more complicated. I understand that the documents have been before the Committee. If they had not, that fact would have been printed on the Order Paper.

Mr. Peter Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be in order for the Home Secretary to explain the position? If the debate gets under way and there are snags or differences, he can explain them to us. Surely it is better to proceed with the debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the two documents are to be taken together, does that mean that there will be one and a half hours only for the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is so. However, there could be two votes if the House so desired—one on each instrument.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take it from your ruling that there will be one and a half hours only of debate for both sets of regulations. That means that the regulations for Northern Ireland, which deal with a system of election different from that for the rest of the United Kingdom, will not be properly debated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I pointed out this matter to the House at the beginning.


The House agreed with no dissenting voice that the two sets of regulations should be taken together. I repeat that at the end of the debate, at half-past eleven, it is in order and correct that there should be two votes, one on each instrument.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance about the confusion that has arisen, certainly in my mind. You will recall that the motion on the recent debate about increased representation at Westminster for Northern Ireland was put down in the name of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Home Secretary appeared during that debate.
One of the documents before the House is in the name of the Home Secretary and the other is in the name of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If we are to take them together, may I ask where the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is? Who is to deal with the Northern Ireland regulations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a long time. He knows that that was not a point of order and was certainly not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many hon. Members are confused about this matter and the points of order have not clarified the position as I would wish. Is there a possibility that we could send for the Lord President to come to the House to explain the situation to us? How can we resolve the position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: About 12 or 13 minutes of the precious time allowed for the debate have already been wasted on points of order. I suggest that we should now proceed.

Mr. James Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this the same point of order? I must warn the House that we are spending a lot of

Division No. 95]
AYES
[10.5 p.m.


Bell, Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:



Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mr. John Lee and



Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. David Stoddart.

time on points of order and we have only one and a half hours after 10 o'clock for the debate.

Mr. Kilfedder: I came into the Chamber only seconds after you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had put to the House that the two documents should be taken together. I came in on the assumption that they were to be taken separately, with one and a half hours for each.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very good at assuming, but on this occasion his assumption came too late.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that we have been considering these matters for nearly 15 minutes. It is self-evident that there is considerable uncertainty and unhappiness about the availability of papers and much uncertainty about what consideration has been given to the matters that are the subject of the orders. A request has been made for the Lord President to come here to give hon. Members clarification. My right hon. Friend will clearly not get here in time to be able to give that information to hon. Members. In view of the uncertainty, would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, be prepared to accept a motion for the Adjournment of the House so that we may proceed with this business on another day?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is unhappiness. I hope that he does not want to make the Chair unhappy. I think that we should get on with the debate.

Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that you—

Mr. Fitt: I beg to move, That Strangers do withdraw.

Notice being taken that Strangers were present, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115 (Withdrawal of Strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That Strangers do withdraw:—

The House divided: Ayes 3, Noes 254.

NOES


Adley. Robert
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Newens, Stanley


Alison, Michael
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Noble, Mike


Allaun, Frank
Fookes, Miss Janet
Oakes, Gordon


Anderson, Donald
Ford, Ben
Ogden, Eric


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Forrester, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Arnold, Tom
George, Bruce
Page, John (Harrow West)


Ashton, Joe
Goodhart, Philip
Park, George


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gould, Bryan
Parkinson, Cecil


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Parry, Robert


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Penhaligon, David


Banks, Robert
Gray, Hamish
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bates, Alf
Hardy, Peter
Price, William (Rugby)


Beith, A. J.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bendall, Vivian
Haselhurst, Alan
Rathbone, Tim


Berry, Hon Anthony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bidwell, Sydney
Home Robertson, John
Reid, George


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Horam, John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Boardman, H.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Body, Richard
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham Sm H)
Rhodes James, R.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hunter, Adam
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hurd, Douglas
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Brittan, Leon
James, David
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Janner, Greville
Rooker, J. W.


Brotherton, Michael
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roper, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Buchan, Norman
John, Brynmor
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Buchanan, Richard
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sandelson, Neville


Buck, Antony
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Selby, Harry


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Sever, John


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Shepherd, Colin


Carter, Ray
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shersby, Michael


Cartwright, John
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kerr, Russell
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kilfedder, James
Skinner, Dennis


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Clemitson, Ivor
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Snape, Peter


Cockcroft, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Spriggs, Leslie


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Knox, David
Stallard, A. W.


Cohen, Stanley
Lamborn, Harry
Stanbrook, Ivor


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Lamond, James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Conlan, Bernard
Lamont, Norman
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cormack, Patrick
Lawrence, Ivan
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cowans, Harry
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Strang, Gavin


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Crawford, Douglas
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Cronin, John
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cryer, Bob
McCusker, H.
Tierney, Sydney


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Tinn, James


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tomlinson, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Maclennan, Robert
Torney, Tom


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Urwin, Rt Hon T. W.


Dempsey, James
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Dewar, Donald
McNamara, Kevin
Waddington, David


Dormand, J. D.
Madden, Max
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Magee, Bryan
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wall, Patrick


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ward, Michael


Durant, Tony
Maynard, Miss Joan
Watkins, David


Dykes, Hugh
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Watkinson, John


Eadie, Alex
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wells, John


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mikardo, Ian
White, Frank R. (Bury)


English, Michael
Mills, Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Whitlock, William


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Moate, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Evans, John (Newton)
Molyneaux, James
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Eyre, Reginald
Morgan, Geraint
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Farr, John
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.



Faulds, Andrew
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Woodall, Alec


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Woof, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Neave, Airey
Wrigglesworth, Ian

Young, David (Bolton E)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Younger, Hon George
Mr. Donald Colman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before we had that important vote there was a good deal of confusion in the House concerning these documents. You said that you hoped that the debate itself would inject some clarity into the situation. We now have less than one hour in which to bring about clarity. In any case, I do not think that there is any precedent in"Erskine May"where debates in this place produce that kind of clarity. I therefore appeal to you Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be indefensible if we cast our votes this evening on the basis of documents that do not seem to apply to the debate, or which we have not even seen.
I ask you, at the very least, to ask the Leader of the House to make a statement. In the meantime, as has happened on a couple of occasions recently, we could adjourn the House until the Leader of the House is available to make that statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an old and familiar point, which is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the documents, he must vote against them.

Mr. John Ellis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not raised a point of order so far on what happened before the Division. I seek to raise a different point of order. Two hon. Gentleman have already raised points of order on the question whether the documents were taken together or separately. I believe that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, quite correctly informed the House, and the House so agreed that they were too late. They had not realised that I agree, but we now have a restricted time for debate—one and a half hours—and the moments are ticking by. I did not raise the point of order before the Division, but there are some hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak in favour of this—although I do not understand why they wish to do so—and they will be restricted during this one and a half hours.
I think that we should adjourn the House so that we can clarify both points that have been raised, whether they are true in substance or not. Nobody can

restore the time that has been taken in the Division. The result is that the debate has been curtailed. I think that we should consider having the debate on another occasion, when we can discuss the matter for the whole one and a half hours, so that hon. Members who have missed the boat will have another chance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has himself said firmly and clearly that time is moving on. I endorse that.

10.18 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,
That the draft European Assembly Elections Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 6 March, be approved.
I hope that the House will also approve the Northern Ireland Regulations.
The two sets of regulations which are before this House this evening provide for the detailed conduct of the first elections of United Kingdom representatives to the European Assembly. The regulations relating to Great Britain provide for the election by the simple majority, or first-past-the-post system, of 78 representatives from England, Wales and Scotland. The Northern Ireland regulations provide for the conduct of the election of three representatives by the single transferable vote system of proportional representation in the one constituency of Northern Ireland.
The decision to adopt these methods of election was taken by this House during debate and discussion on the European Assembly Elections Act, which received Royal Assent in May last year. Schedule 1(2) to the Act gave the Secretary of State power to draw up regulations for the detailed conduct of the elections based on the existing statutes governing parliamentary elections. Following discussion in Committee the Government agreed that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses of Parliament, and that for the purposes of consultation drafts of the regulations should be published in White Papers. They were duly published in August last year—one by myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, the other by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Copies of the White Papers were sent to all those concerned with the organisation of elections, including the representatives of returning officers, the local authority associations, the broadcasting organisations, and the political parties. The Government are grateful for the full and informed response that resulted. Although we have not been persuaded to depart from some of the most substantive proposals—on the level of the deposit, for example—a number of improvements to both sets of regulations have been made We are grateful to all those who participated in the consultations.
Following consideration of all the comments and technical suggestions the Government laid fresh drafts before the House in January this year. As is usual, the drafts were considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which brought to our attention an omission from both sets of regulations regarding the declaration of secrecy to be made by the officers charged with verifying the total of ballot papers at the close of poll on Thursday before they are sealed again for the count some days later. In the light of their comments we withdrew the first sets of regulations and laid new drafts on 6 March. The Joint Committee, acting with speed, has approved the new drafts. We are indebted to it.
Before I outline to the House some of the detail of the regulations I should like to review briefly the other necessary preliminaries to the holding of the elections on 7 June.
The Parliamentary Boundary Commissions made the final reports at the end of 1978 on the composition of the constituencies in Great Britain. Northern Ireland forms a single constituency. The Orders in Council to give effect to the Great Britain constituency boundaries were laid before Parliament in draft in December and were approved. The political parties are now far advanced with their procedure for the selection of candidates for the constituencies.
I have also made an order, as I am required to do by the European Assembly Elections Act, fixing 7 June, the first day of the period determined by the European Council, as the date of the election of the

representatives from the United Kingdom. I have also made an order appointing returning officers for the constituencies from those who conduct parliamentary elections in England and Wales. In making the latter order I took careful note of all the representations that were made to me. A similar order has been made by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Thus, we are now at the final stage of preparations for these first direct elections.

Mr. Madden: In view of the speculation in some quarters about the effect of a general election coinciding with elections to the European Assembly, what legislation will be needed to secure such a joint election? What representations has my right hon. Friend received from the relevant authorities about the difficulties which such an event would create?

Mr. Rees: I shall deal with that matter shortly. I have received no representations on this matter.
It is the job of the House to make the final decision and to complete the parliamentary procedure necessary before the people can elect their representatives.
I turn to the content of the regulations. The Government made clear in our White Paper on direct elections, published in 1977, that, whatever system or systems of election was chosen by Parliament, the actual conduct of the election should be closely related to the conduct of a parliamentary election. Thus the regulations are set out in a form which shows how the existing parliamentary statutes have been adapted. This was the practice followed in the orders regulating the conduct of the EEC referendum in 1975 and of the recent referendum on devolution.
This is also consistent with the general approach that the House adopted to the principal features of the election when considering the European Assembly Elections Act. As the House will recall, the Act provides that the qualification for holding the office of a representative to the Assembly will be broadly similar to that of being a member of this House. The Act also provides that the franchise is broadly the same. In these regulations we follow through this approach.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman


aware that stemming from the EEC referendum and the Act there is much ill feeling among many British citizens who are working not in the United Kingdom but elsewhere in the EEC who have been deprived of a vote? Between now and the next EEC election in a few years' time, will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues within the EEC get together to ascertain whether some satisfactory solution may be found to enable those people to vote in a European election?

Mr. Rees: The House took the decision to use United Kingdom registers. The registers will include those who are in residence in September, the register becoming available the following February. It is for the Speaker's Conference, or some other such body, to make a change to enable those not living in the United Kingdom to have the right to vote. It was the decision of the House to use United Kingdom registers. In my view there would have to be a Speaker's Conference before we could make a profound change in the way that we have carried out elections since the reforming measure of 1832.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the question aked by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) casts an untrue reflection on the institutions of the Community? The hon. Gentleman complains that there are British people living abroad who do not have the right to vote. That is nothing to do with the Community's organisation but is entirely to do with the Government's organisation.

Mr. Rees: The decision was taken not by the Government but by Parliament. All those who played a part in the debates in this place will recall the decision being taken.
For the elector the regulations for the conduct of the elections in Great Britain provide that voting for the elections will follow a pattern precisely similar to that of a parliamentary election. The elector will receive official notification of the election on a poll card, which will be almost identical to the cards used at parliamentary or local government elections. The elector will generally vote in the same polling station as for parliamentary elections. The procedure in the polling station

will be the same, and he or she will mark the same type of ballot paper.
The elector in Northern Ireland will follow the procedure of the single transferable vote election with which he is familiar in local elections.
I now deal with the query of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), who asked whether there could be a general election and elections to the European Assembly on the same day. I say nothing about the desirability of such a decision, as that is not for me. I confine myself to answering my hon. Friend and dealing with the problems that would arise and the legal position if such a decision were taken.
There is nothing in the present law that says that one cannot hold an election to one body on the same day as an election to another. Rightly, the law is specific about election procedures. All the procedures have to be gone through if the election is to be valid. Thus, under the present law two elections could be held on the same day, simultaneously but separately. There would be two polling stations, possibly in the same room if it were big enough to accommodate them. There would be two sets of staff, two sets of ballot boxes and ballot papers, and separate election expenses returns. However, there is enough equipment only for the 50,000 polling stations that are used to handle one election at a time. Therefore, there would be practical difficulties in making such arrangements.

Mr. Lee: rose—

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr) rose—

Mr. Rees: I ask my hon. Friends to allow me to finsh. This matter is like the Schleswig-Holstein question; only two people understand it—two people in the office—and myself. All the others who have commented on it are wrong.
The alternative would be to streamline the procedure so that the same ballot box at each polling station could be used for both elections. I am assured that in most polling stations there is plenty of spare capacity in the ballot boxes that are used. I am assured that the same staff could be used to handle both elections and that the same official stamping instruments and other equipment could be used. It is not


a radical proposal. We already have combined parish and district elections. In those elections different coloured ballot papers are often used and the ballot papers are sorted before they are counted. There is general agreement that that procedure works smoothly.
As I have said, we would not be able to use a streamlined procedure under the present electoral laws. A short Bill would have to be brought before the House at the appropriate moment. There would be no problem if the Prime Minister decided not to go to October or November. However, that is not a matter for me.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Will the Minister indicate to which hon. Member he is giving way?

Mr. Rees: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).

Mr. Rooker: I want to ask my right hon. Friend about something which concerns some of us in some parts of the country where, because of tradition, political poll cards are issued at elections, with the polling stations on them. I have to tell my right hon. Friend that some of these political poll cards have already been printed, with the polling stations on them. Will he take cognisance of the fact that any changing of polling stations would cause chaos for both the Labour Party and the Tory Party, as in Birmingham it is traditional for the Labour Party and the Tory Party to issue political poll cards?

Mr. Rees: What people have decided to do in those areas is not a matter for me. I am only responsible for the official poll cards. It is not for me to decide whether unofficial poll cards are legal.

Mr. Alan Clark: The question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and the Home Secretary's answer confirm the analogy with the Schleswig-Holstein question. The Home Secretary did not point out that the answer given by the Foreign Secretary at the time was:
 There are only three men who have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead, the second was a German professor, who

became mad, and I am the third, and I have forgotten all about it.

Mr. Rees: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I remember it, and whether the hon. Gentleman is mad or dead is a matter on which he must make up his own mind.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend consider very carefully the advice that he has been given in terms of what he described as capacity? It is one thing to talk about the voting throughout the day. It is another thing to bear in mind what happens between 8 pm and 9 pm, or between 9 pm and 10 pm. In my experience, polling booths have been absolutely packed at those times. If we had to issue two voting slips, and people were voting twice, this would cause even more delay. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the only reason why this idea is being pushed is the knowledge that if the British people are asked to vote on 7 June simply in the direct elections there will be a derisory turn-out—and I shall be glad if that is so.

Mr. Rees: I can assure my hon. Friend—it is my job to be ready for whatever might happen—that I do not think that there will be a problem on that, either. But we are just guessing here about the future.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Home Secretary accept from me that the people of Northern Ireland would object most strongly to the holding of the EEC election and the Westminster election on the same day? There would be total confusion, because in Northern Ireland there would be proportional representation for one election and the first-past-the-post system for the other election. People would not know which way they should vote.

Mr. Rees: When I was in Northern Ireland I noticed that there was a very high turnout in very complicated elections, because the Northern Irish people feel very strongly about their politics. We shall have to wait and see. This is purely guesswork as to what might happen.

Mr. Russell Johnston: If the Government intend to have these two elections on the same day, what length of notice would they regard as appropriate?

Mr. Rees: The Government have made no such decision at all. In my diary I am talking about 5 November, but I do not decide when it should happen.

Mr. Fitt: My right hon. Friend has already said that it would be possible to use one ballot box for the two ballot papers. One of those ballot papers would be marked"X ", on the first-past-the-post system and the other would be marked on the PR system. On page 33 of the Draft European Assembly Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1979 there are candidates called Harry Lime, Peter Plum, Sterling Silver and Gentian Violet. Does my right hon. Friend not believe that that in itself would cause considerable confusion in Northern Ireland? Where in the name of God would one get a man called Peter Plum in Enniskillen?

Mr. Rees: These are hypothetical questions that my hon Friend is asking.
The returning officers in Great Britain have been chosen from those responsible for parliamentary elections. The returning officer's duties will be undertaken by an acting returning officer, normally the chief executive or other official of one of the large authorities within the constituency. The returning officer will depend on the staff from areas in the other constituencies.
The returning officer and his staff will have similar responsibilities and they will, as they say,"umpire"the election, using much the same rules as apply in parliamentary elections. Broadly speaking, there will be the same offences and the same punishments.

Mr. Lee: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. Gentleman interrupts, may I tell the House that all these interruptions will mean that someone who could have been called will not be called?

Mr. Lee: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the question of expenses? There has often been a problem of determining when an election begins—as he knows from paragraph 710 of the fifteenth volume of Halsbury. Bearing in mind that the election date has already been determined, it is my submission that all expenses incidental to elections are accountable, as it were, from now on.

Mr. Rees: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that he should try that in the courts and then no doubt he would not be here in the evenings to ask me the question.
For the candidates and the political parties, there will be the same entitlements as regards free postage and the use of meeting halls as available under the legislation governing parliamentary elections. There are, however, a number of differences between the conduct of these elections and the conduct of parliamentary elections and I shall draw the attention of the House to a number of these.
The first set of differences relates to the size of the constituencies. We know that there are 81 seats for this country. There was considerable debates as to how 81 seats should be allocated, but what it means is that the European constituencies are a good deal larger than those that we in this House normally represent. [Interruption]. I put that in because I thought that there were some people who, by the noise they are making, did not know it.
Therefore, we needed to fix a higher overall maximum for election expenses. The regulations provide that each candidate should be able to spend the basic sum of £5,000, plus a variable figure of 2p per elector. At parliamentary elections the related figures are a basic of £1,750, plus 2p per election in a county constituency and 1½p per elector in a borough constituency.
This means that the average amount per elector for European Assembly candidates will be slightly less than the level fixed for parliamentary candidates in the Representation of the People Act last year. In my view this is justifiable and realistic, given the economies of scale.
With regard to deposits, we recognise that the larger constituency, and thus a larger electorate and greater access to free postage facilities, necessitate a higher level of deposit from each candidate. There has been a great deal of discussion about this. There has been a related debate about the level of parliamentary deposit which has been fixed at £150 since 1918, as everyone knows.
These matters are clearly related and our aim was to find a level for the European Assembly election which was not so high that it appeared to prejudice an


increase in the level of parliamentary deposit. There is no consensus of view on this and I think that we are right to abide by the figure of £600 in our draft, which is a reasonable compromise between the extremes that have been pressed upon us. 
In the election in Great Britain the deposit will be returnable on a candidate achieving 12½ per cent. of the valid votes cast, and in Northern Ireland it will be returnable on a candidate achieving one quarter of the electoral quota at any stage in the count.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: May I bring my right hon. Friend back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee)? It is not good enough to shrug it aside by saying it can be tried in the courts. Is a meeting held over the next month or so, addressed by someone announced as a candidate for the European Parliament, accountable as an election address?

Mr. Rees: No doubt my hon. Friend has been chosen as a candidate for a Westminster—

Mr. Whitehead: That is not the point.

Mr. Rees: If meetings are held, and are addressed by European candidates, in my view—but it would have to be checked—it would count as election expenses. Certainly, as has happened to me during the past nine elections, once the Writ has been moved it changes a person from being a"prospective candidate"into a"candidate ".
A number of views—

Mr. David Steel: This is a complicated matter, and I am sorry that we have so little time to deal with it. The Home Secretary quickly slid past the question of the free post. I ask him to reflect on that. There will be 500,000 electors on average in each constituency. Is it seriously suggested that the only system that we can use is addressing individual envelopes, as required under the existing Post Office regulations for parliamentary elections? Could we not simplify the process by allowing the Post Office to distribute the election literature, as it does the commercial literature and as was done in the European referendum?

Mr. Rees: That has obviously been considered. But it would need a change in the law. My view on behalf of the Government is that in this respect we should stick to the rules that we use in this country for the Westminster elections. If there is to be any change, it is the sort of thing that would have to be considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Stallard: rose—

Mr. Rees: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed. Returning officers and others look to the House for guidance, and at this pitch we shall not get the information on the record

Mr. Stallard: I am sorry to press my right hon. Friend, but it is an important point. It is not good enough to equate the European elections with the situation as it applies in the Parliamentary elections. One big difference is that we already know the date for the European elections. Many of us would say that as from now the European election campaign has started. Therefore, this is a different game. Most candidates for the general election have, as yet, not been chosen, and we do not know the date. Therefore, there is a different set of circumstances that cannot be brushed aside in far too hurried a debate tonight.

Mr. Rees: It would be a matter for the courts—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."]—Of course, it would, as it has been in Westminster elections over the years. If a man or woman declares himself or herself a candidate, and runs meetings in furtherance of that, in my view he or she stands every chance of having those expenses counted as election expenses.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The total electorate in Northern Ireland at this election is almost 1 million. Surely the statement made by the Leader of the Liberal Party is one that is worthy of consideration especially when election literature has to go to 1 million voters. Surely some arrangement should be made whereby these envelopes should not have to be personally addressed by the individual candidates.

Mr. Rees: The decision that we took was to use the system that we use for the Westminster elections. Any change would be a profound one, and we would have to consider whether it would wash


over on to Westminster elections. Putting a leaflet through the door is a much easier exercise than is party workers looking at a register, which all of us know is vital to an election. At some time, the House will have to make up its mind on that. But, for the moment, I am sticking to the rules that we in this House have followed over the years.
There were varying views about the number of signatures. I understand that the Liberal Party favoured a nomination form of 500 electors instead of a monetary deposit. The Conservative Party favoured a requirement for a number of supporters from every parliamentary constituency in the Euro-constituency. We considered these—

Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? It seems to me that prospective candidates standing in the European elections from all parties are, from now, threatened with the possibility of legal action, because they do not know when they can begin making proper disbursements of the amounts of money that they have been allocated. I think that this is a serious matter, which demands a thorough debate. It cannot be left in the ambivalent way that the Secretary of State has left it.

Mr. Rees: We could have had half an hour at the beginning of the debate to discuss this most important issue. If a man is a prospective candidate, in my view there is no problem. If he is a candidate, has declared himself as such, and is soliciting votes, he has declared himself in a way that the expenditure counts against the election.

Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The reason why so many questions and points of order are being raised is that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of the confusion here and of the quite insufficient time allocated to a discussion of this very important topic. It seems to me that this debate ought to be adjourned and that we should be given an opportunity to discuss the matter fully on another occasion. It is much too important to try to do it all now.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Before I take any other point of order, I must remind the House that the Home Secretary is nearing the end of his speech. The debate has continued.

Mr. Madden: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. This debate should have started at 9.48 pm. As you know, before you took the Chair there were a number of points of order. The Home Secretary has drawn attention to very serious matters, and I think that it would be only fair to him to have the opportunity to return to the House after seeking guidance on these most important matters. Are you prepared to accept a motion from me to report Progress and so enable these matters to be discussed more fully at a later date?

Mr. Speaker: I am not accepting such a motion. The debate is under way.

Mr. Rees: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. These draft regulations have been about for three months. They have been discussed by all the political parties. I am extremely familiar with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby is quite entitled to play games, but he is not entitled to say that we do not understand the regulations. They are quite clear to all the political parties.

Mr. Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret very much that the Home Secretary should accuse hon. Members who have been raising legitimate points of order of"playing games ". I hope that he will reconsider that.

Mr. Roy Hughes: He has not got the answers.

Mr. Stoddart: My point of order is, in my view, a very important one. We need to have clarification of it because of the treatment of certain of our citizens, namely, people who have agreed to be named as candidates for the European Assembly. The Home Secretary has made certain statements that will cause confusion. In the first place—

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member give me a point of order on which I can rule? The fact that he disagrees with the Home Secretary is not one on which I can rule.

Mr. Stoddart: Is it in order for the Home Secretary to give information that may be misleading to candidates for the European Assembly elections and that may cause them difficulty, expense, and perhaps even imprisonment?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary takes responsibility for his own statements.

Mr. Rees: It is exactly the same for someone who is a candidate for the Westminster Parliament.
The other important set of differences concerns the counting of votes. Article 9(2) of the decision of the European Communities on direct elections provides that the counting shall not begin in each member State until the close of poll in the last member State to vote during the period 7–10 June determined by the European Council. That means that while we shall be closing our polls at 10 pm on Thursday evening 7 June, we shall not be in a position to begin the count proper until the following Sunday evening. The exact timing of this has yet to be determined in most areas of the United Kingdom. I understand, however, that a definite decision has been reached in Northern Ireland not to start the count until Monday.
In other areas the first results from constituencies should be known late on Sunday evening. In order to ensure that there is no risk of malpractice when there is such an interval between the close of poll and the count, there will be a separate verification stage taking place in all constituencies on the evening of the poll. At that stage the number of ballot papers will be checked against the ballot paper accounts. They will then be sent for counting to the constituency returning officer.
To summarise, I believe that with the exception of the special arrangements which I have just outlined these regulations are well precedented. They apply to the novel constitutional feature of direct elections to the European Assembly systems of election which are well tried and well known. They complete the long and often difficult parliamentary procedure preparatory to the election. It is now for the House to decide, and to give the final approval necessary for the

administrative machinery and organisation to be set fully in motion. I believe that both these sets of regulations fully deserve the support of this House.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: The House will be grateful to the Home Secretary for setting out the details of these regulations amongst a certain amount of interruption. We should also be grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for pointing out the need for declaration of secrecy for the verifying officers. That alone emphasises that we are on unfamiliar electoral ground.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear all along that we want the election to take place on 7 June, so we are bound to urge the House to agree to these regulations. But we do not agree with everything in the regulations, and, as we have made clear in the past, we do not agree with the different procedures that have been adopted for Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has made clear on many occasions, that is unsatisfactory.
In consultations with the political parties we raised certain matters that have not been covered in the regulations. First, there is the deposit. Our anxiety is to deter frivolous candidates. That must be the concern of all who want to see the elections conducted in an orderly way. We cannot understand why the existing deposit was not simply multiplied by the minimum number of Westminster constituencies in any one of these Euro-constituencies. That would have come to £900. In October my right hon. Friend the chairman of the Conservative Party put forward that suggestion. We heard nothing more, and the Government have thrown up £600, which seems to have been plucked out of the air. The logical approach, pending a longer-term review under your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, would be to multiply £150 by six.
The other deterrent to frivolous candidates that we hoped to see related to the question of signatories on nomination papers. The regulations require 30 signatories from anywhere in the Euro-constituency. We think that there should be 10 signatories from each Westminster seat, as this would be a more serious obstacle. There is a considerable sum of free postage available to every candidate—more


than £35,000 in total—and we need to make sure that frivolity among people seeking to put themselves forward as candidates is deterred. I am not sure that the regulations entirely meet our fears on this point.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Why do the Conservatives believe that it is better to raise objections to frivolous candidates on a monetary basis, rather than a signatory basis?

Mr. Rooker: Because they have a philosophy of money.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) will have heard me rest it on both bases. Either way we want to try to ensure that these regulations provide for orderly elections. The two measures we proposed—which regrettably have not been accepted—would have helped in that respect.
I particularly wish to draw the attention of the House to the timetable that is set out in the draft regulations for England and Wales and Scotland on page 15, where there is a long column of explanations for the dates for the publication of notice of election, delivery of nomination papers, and so on. Since we know that the date of the election is 7 June, would it not be easier for the Home Secretary to publish papers giving the specific dates when all these things are supposed to happen? I believe that an undertaking to do that was given in another place. This would be very helpful, so that we would know the last dates by which all these things must happen. That might help to simplify the problem that the Home Secretary had a few minutes ago on the question of the point at which a prospective candidate becomes a candidate and is liable to incur election expenses which must be counted against his total.
On accounting arrangements, the Home Secretary explained that we have this unusual situation in which the votes must all be verified and then locked away until Sunday night when the polls close throughout the rest of the EEC. I presume that that will be at 10 o'clock, but because the clocks are different, it will be 10 o'clock our time in some places and 11 o'clock our time in others. In the three intervening days there will be quite a considerable security problem.

We need an assurance that the security procedures will be given special attention because there is scope for problems here.
The Home Secretary said that the parties are now choosing their candidates. We are doing so, and I believe that the Liberal and Labour parties are, as well. I have seen reports in the press that Labour party candidates elected will be required to hand over to the research department at Transport House some of the expenses that they draw for carrying out constituency duties. If that is so it is a most improper development. I hope that we will have a clear denial from the Home Secretary on this matter.
I turn to the question of other elections on the same day. We cannot leave this matter where it was left in our earlier rather distraught and disorganised discussion. As the law stands now there is nothing in the regulations to prevent another election from being held—say, to Westminster—on 7 June, provided that there are separate polling facilities. In other words, there would need to be a complete duplication of staff, polling stations, and their facilities.
When the Home Secretary said that the matter was rather like the Schleswig Holstein situation I felt that whoever undertook the drafting in the Home Office may also have forgotten some of the complexities of the problem. The Home Secretary and his noble Friend in another place said that the European Assembly vote would be held in the same polling stations as were the parliamentary elections. Therefore, on present trends, it would be impossible for the elections to be held simultaneously with separate polling facilities and in the same polling stations. The Home Secretary has—in his own words—ruled out the possibility, under present law, of elections being held both for Westminster and the European Assembly on the same day. Is it correct that primary legislation would be required, so that the two elections could be held on 7 June?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: If the elections were separate and, for example, in a school classroom, with a replica in the adjoining classroom, there would be no problem. However, if the same room were used, without the duplication of equipment—stamps, boxes, screens—it would require a small Bill.

Mr. Howell: The Home Secretary said earlier that it would be in the same polling station, as did his noble Friend in the other place. Some confusion remains about the matter.

Mr. Rees: There is no confusion about the matter. It is possible to use, for example, a separate part of a school. These rules would apply, and not the Westminster rules, but the duplication of equipment would be required. It could be done in the same room, but it would require a small amount of primary legislation.

Mr. Howell: Presumably the primary legislation is required only if the same room in the polling station is used and if the same returning officers are involved. The Home Secretary and his noble Friend in another place have said that they intend to use returning officers from the parliamentary election for the European election. I believe that there would be difficulties.

Mr. Rees: I see no reason why the normal returning officer in a parliamentary election—the town clerk or chief executive—could not handle two elections. If there were two elections in the same school there would be no reason why the returning officer could not keep his eye on both.

Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind that there remain only 16 minutes of the debate, and that at present a dialogue is running, can Progress be moved upon the matter, so that we can have time to re-examine it and debate it on another day?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept the motion at the moment.

Mr. Howell: I am trying to get along as fast as I can. However, this is an important point and I am far from reassured about the matter. I am less reassured when I think of the point raised by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) that there will be two systems of election running simultaneously on the same day. There would be electoral chaos.
I ask the Home Secretary to recognise that it would seriously jeopardise the good conduct of orderly elections, either to Europe or Westminster, if an attempt were made to run them on the same day.

Whether one is for or against Europe, or for or against the elections, it must be in the best interests of democracy to have orderly and efficiently run elections. Nothing has been said tonight to reassure us that electoral chaos would not ensue if an attempt was made to run both elections at once.
We have strayed slightly from the main purpose of the regulations. Our view is that the House should support them, even though we do not agree with all the details, and that we should go forward to orderly elections on 7 June.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I regret that we have only a few more minutes in which to discuss the regulations. They are of paramount importance to the whole of the United Kingdom and I fail to understand the reasoning of the Government and those who control the business of the House in bringing forward such regulations at this time of night and allowing only a short period for us to debate them.
The problems in Great Britain will be doubled, trebled and quadrupled in Northern Ireland because two systems of election will be used there. Many of my hon. Friends intervened during the Home Secretary's speech to ask in what circumstances it will be right for a person to incur expenses on the ground of his candidacy for the European elections. I understand that the problem may become even more involved, because arrangements are being made by European sources for the payment of moneys—expenses and otherwise—from Europe to some bona fide candidates for the 7 June elections.
Another problem is uppermost in the minds of those in Northern Ireland. Mr. Oliver Napier, of the Alliance Party, has been nominated for the Belfast, East constituency in elections to the House, but he has also been nominated as a European candidate. His party says that if both elections are held on the same day he will go for only one of the seats, but until 7 June Mr. Napier will legitimately be incurring expenditure on the grounds of his European candidacy and some form of expenditure on the ground that he is a candidate for the Belfast, East constituency in elections to Westminster.
Is Oliver Napier breaking the law? No doubt the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will also want to clarify his position. I doubt whether he will have much difficulty in being re-nominated for the Westminster elections, but he has also been adopted this week as a European candidate. When will it be right for him to campaign and to incur expenditure?
A number of my hon. Friends have rightly referred to the confusion that exists over the regulations. Although some Conservative Members will not admit it, they are also confused. It is disgraceful that the House should be asked to approve the regulations at this hour of night. Page after page of the regulations contains references to sections of the 1949, 1969 and 1978 Acts. Do the Government really believe that hon. Members have had time to go through all those Acts to find out what they contain? It may be that some Tory Members, who are not as assiduous as other hon. Members in looking after their constituency interests, have had time to burn the midnight oil and pore over the Acts. I have no hesitation in saying that I would find it impossible to read up on this matter. If I were doing so, I would not be looking after the interests of my constituents. Let me ask the House—

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) rose—

Mr. Fitt: Let me ask any Member of the House—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Fitt: Can any hon. Member of the House tell me the maximum penalty for the offence of personation? If any hon. Member can tell me what section 47 of the 1949 Act says, I am prepared to give way. Nobody knows what is the maximum fine. Hon. Members have not been reading the regulations. They do not know. They are chancing their arm. Can anyone tell me the minimum penalty for the offence of personation? No. They cannot.

Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House, as we are dealing with an Irish question, on what legal date the official European campaign starts?

Mr. Fitt: I do not believe that I have the authority to answer to such questions. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend. I would like the Home Secretary to tell me. If he does not know, I would like the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to tell me. He would know more about the regulations that I am discussing and could perhaps inform me on what date the campaign starts in Northern Ireland.
Serious issues are involved in this election. The election is the most unique in the whole history of the United Kingdom. It is an election that is unparalleled and—

Mr. Jay: Unnecessary.

Mr. Fitt: —and unnecessary. The results will have a decisive effect on the whole future of the United Kingdom. I am not certain how debates were brought about in other parts of the EEC. I am certain, however, that the regulations attached to the election were not conducted within the short period of an hour and a half.
I have already indicated that most hon. Members of this House do not know what is the maximum penalty for personation. Perhaps it does not happen in this part of the United Kingdom. But it certainly happens in Northern Ireland, as my right hon. Friend will be well aware. Has he considered what will be the attitude of the Government? I do not want him to say that this will be decided by the courts. That is an easy get-out. I would not like to think that the election result in any Northern Ireland constituency had been decided by votes cast illegally. That has happened in the past. It has not happened on too many occasions, but it has occurred. This is not a sniggering or giggling matter. It is very serious.
Local government elections were taking place in May 1977. One of the candidates for the Republican Clubs called at my home on the eve of the poll. He told me that the Provisional IRA or the Provisional Sinn Fein were not contesting the election and that they would not be voting, because they did not believe in associating in any way with elections under the auspices of the British Parliament. He then proceeded to tell me that he had a list of Provisional Sinn Fein or Provisional IRA supporters who were not


going to vote, and would it be all right with me if he and his supporters voted on their behalf? I told him that I could not associate myself with that suggestion. I would have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If I may assist the hon. Gentleman, it would appear to me that the penalties for personation would be the same in a European as in a parliamentary election. The regulations make that clear. That may confuse English Members, but it is obvious that Irish Members have a great deal of expertise on the subject of personation. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will let us know the maximum penalty that his friend was running the risk of incurring in the election that he was describing.

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman should be very careful when talking about friends. That man was a political opponent, not a friend. By the way, I believe that the Under-Secretary of State is very friendly with that person—alderman Seamus Lynch. He then proceeded to show me a list of the names—

Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are nearing the end of the debate and there has not been adequate discussion. Are there any procedural motions under which, according to our Standing Orders, you have the right not to put the question? I draw attention to Standing Order No. 3:
 Provided that, if Mr. Speaker shall be of opinion that, because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion, the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the question as aforesaid, interrupt the business, and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting.
I submit that this situation is not unprecedented. This is a very important debate. We have Standing Orders so that, in a situation such as this, you, Mr. Speaker, can use your discretion to enable the House properly to consider matters of this kind. I do not think that any hon. Member, whatever his feelings about the regulations, believes that adequate consideration has been given to them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am well aware of all that has taken place this evening. I intend to put the question at 11.30 pm.

That is the judgment that I have reached. I know that the House lost 20 minutes through spying strangers. I know exactly what happened tonight, and I intend to put the question at 11.30.

Mr. Fitt: I want to be as helpful as possible, especially to my hon. Friends, who are deeply concerned about these regulations, but even if I were to sit down now there would be too little time for hon. Members on either side of the House to express their opinion. [Hon. Members:"Sit down."] I have no intention of sitting down. Provided that I can stay within the bounds of order—I have no doubt that I can—I shall be standing here at half-past 11. So, if hon. Members are not interested in what I have to say, the sooner they go the better.

Mr. Dykes: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that that is grossly unfair to the House? There has been a grotesque amount of filibustering by the hon. Gentleman and others who do not care about democratic debate, even in an hour and a half, and who have done that for their own narrow purposes. Indeed, it was the hon. Gentleman himself who moved that strangers should withdraw.

Mr. Fitt: If there is anyone in this House who is being grossly unfair it is the Government. They should have made many hours available for a discussion. I have no intention of accommodating a Government who have been so unsure of themselves that they did not want to have a prolonged debate with all the expressions of opposition that might have been heard in the House.
Let me return to the problem of personation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the hon. Gentleman has already taken up 34 minutes of the 90 minutes available for this debate, it is not clear that he is deliberately setting out to prevent the House debating the matter?

Mr. Speaker: We must let the hon. Gentleman proceed.

Mr. Fitt: I was referring to section 47—

Mr. Speaker: Had the hon. Gentleman given way to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has so far taken 10 minutes in asking one point about personation, the answer to which is as plain as a pikestaff to anybody who has read the regulations. Is he seriously trying to conduct a debate or is he trying to waste the time of the House, thus preventing anybody from talking about the serious content of the regulations?

Mr. Fitt: I am asking a serious question about personation. I am asking about section 47 of the Act of 1949 and the maximum and minimum penalties that can be invoked. I have referred to a Republican Clubs candidate in the local government elections in 1977. On the eve of the poll he came to my house and told me that those who supported Provisional Sinn Fein or the Provisional IRA were not going to cast their votes and that he was going to use his organisation to personate those votes on behalf of himself.
I do not support the Provisional IRA or the Provisional Sinn Fein, or any other terrorist organisation in Northern Ireland, but I do not believe that it is right and just that people who support them should have their votes stolen from them in the way that was done on that occasion. That candidate give me a list that contained 700 names—I have the list here—and the next day, during the election perhaps not all, but the majority of the 700 were personated on behalf of that candidate.
My agents were trying to do what they could to prevent personation and I was responsible for having three people engaged in the illegal activity of personation apprehended by the police. They were brought before the courts and fined the magnificent sum of £15. I regard that penalty as being absolutely derisory and in no way calculated to stop people engaging in the practice of personation.
The European elections are going to change the course of the history of these islands, and those who are elected would, I hope, be elected, because the electorate has gone out, of its own free will, and cast either an X, or, in the case of Northern Ireland, the figure 1 before their names. I am fearful that some of the candidates in Northern Ireland will engage in all sorts of para-military activity. It will be restricted not to the Loyalist side but to the so-called Re-

publican side, to ensure that its candidates are elected.
I ask my right hon. Friends to state before the closure of this debate, that anyone found guilty of the offence of personation in the European elections—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: What about other elections?

Mr. Fitt: Any elections. But we are discussing European elections. I would ask that the criteria apply to local government elections, elections to any assembly, to Stormont, and to the Westminster elections. But we are discussing the elections to the European Assembly.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Given the fact that nobody other than the hon. Gentleman is likely to speak on this point, does he not agree that it is ridiculous that many old ladies will be sitting addressing envelopes when the sensible thing would be to take advantage of the Post Office system already operating to distribute views.

Mr. Fitt: I agree. That is a constructive suggestion. Few suggestions have been made, because of the time. If the debate had been longer many hon. Members on both sides could have given of their wisdom and experience.
I know that the Home Secretary will say that these are matters for the courts. I urge him to say that anyone who is found guilty of the offence of personation at the European elections in Northern Ireland will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

Mr. Stallard: In Brussels.

Mr. Fitt: These elections are so important that every possible safeguard must be built in to the system. The Home Secretary has said that two polling stations could be housed under one roof. He will be aware that in Northern Ireland the electoral areas are based to a large extent on sectarian divisions. People are afraid to cross from one part of Belfast to another because they fear that they will be accosted on the way to the poll.
That is understandable in elections to this House. The returning officers have tried to draw boundaries that ensure the safety of electors when they cast their


votes. But will the same boundaries apply for the European elections?
A million people will be voting in Northern Ireland in one constituency which is twice the size of the average constituency. I am certain that Northern Ireland people voting in a European election will be called upon to cross the sectarian divisions and will have to vote in areas which are hostile to their political beliefs.

Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before you replaced Mr. Speaker in the Chair a point of order was raised asking for advice about how a vote could be avoided because of the lack of adequate debate. Mr. Speaker said that he intended to call the vote at 11.30 p.m. He also said that a vote had to be taken on the withdrawal of strangers.
I am anxious to speak in the debate. I have made no interjection. Only one

Division No. 96]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Adley. Robert
English, Michael
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Anderson, Donald
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Neave, Airey


Armstrong, Ernest
Fairgrieve, Russell
Ogden, Eric


Arnold, Tom
Ford, Ben
Price, William (Rugby)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rathbone, Tim


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Goodhart, Philip
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Reid, George


Bates, Alt
Hardy, Peter
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Haselhurst, Alan
Roper, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Sandelson, Neville


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hicks, Robert
Sever, John


Brittan, Leon
Home Robertson, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Horam, John
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Brotherton, Michael
Howell, David (Guildford)
Snape, Peter


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hurd, Douglas
Stradling Thomas, J.


Buchanan, Richard
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Strang, Gavin


Buck, Antony
John, Brynmor
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Campbell, Ian
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Tinn, James


Cant, R. B.
Judd, Frank
Tomlinson, John


Carter, Ray
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Urwin, Rt Hon T. W.


Channon, Paul
Kerr, Russell
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Cohen, Stanley
Luard, Evan
Ward, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Welsh, Andrew


Concannon, Rt Hon John
McCartney, Hugh
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Cowans, Harry
McElhone, Frank
White, James (Pollok)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Whitehead, Phillip


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Magee, Bryan
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Marks, Kenneth
Young, David (Bolton E)


Dormand, J. D.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Younger, Hon George


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce



Duffy, A. E. P.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Durant, Tony
Mills, Peter
Mr. James Hamilton and


Dykes, Hugh
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred
Mr. Ted Graham.


Eadie. Alex
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Back Bench Member has been called to speak, and he is the hon. Member who called for the Division about which Mr. Speaker complained. About 20 minutes was taken from the scant time available, because of the action of the only Back Bencher whom Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, called. The conduct of the debate has been unfair to those hon. Members who have genuinely—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Mr. Speaker ruled on what he intended should take place at 11.30 p.m. The House conducts its own affairs as it wishes. The debates are being taken together, and now I must put the Question.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3(Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 73.

NOES


Allaun, Frank
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Penhaligon, David


Beith, A. J.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bidwell, Sydney
Kerr, Russell
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Body, Richard
Kilfedder, James
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bradford, Rev Robert
Kinnock, Nell
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Carson, John
Lambie, David
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.


Clemitson, Ivor
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lee, John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Litterick, Tom
Sedgemore, Brian


Cryer, Bob
McCusker, H.
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Spearing, Nigel


Farr, John
Madden, Max
Spriggs, Leslie


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marten, Nell
Stallard, A. W.


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Flannery, Martin
Mikardo, Ian
Stoddart, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Forrester, John
Moate, Roger
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


George, Bruce
Molloy, William
Winterton, Nicholas


Gould, Bryan
Molyneaux, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Newens, Stanley
Woof, Robert


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
O'Halloran, Michael



Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ovenden, John
TELLERS FOR THE NO:


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. John Ellis and Mr. Kevin McNamara


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Parry, Robert



Jeger, Mrs Lena
Pavitt, Laurie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft European Assembly Elections Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.

Division No. 97]
AYES
[11.41 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Ogden, Eric


Anderson, Donald
George, Bruce
Penhaligon, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Graham, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)


Armstrong, Ernest
Grant, John (Islington C)
Rathbone, Tim


Arnold, Tom
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hardy, Peter
Reid, George


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Beith, A. J.
Haselhurst, Alan
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hicks, Robert
Roper, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Home Robertson, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Horam, John
Sandelson, Neville


Brooke, Hon Peter
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Sever, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Buck, Antony
John, Brynmor
Snape, Peter


Campbell, Ian
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Carter, Ray
Judd, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Knox, David
Tinn, James


Cohen, Stanley
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Tomlinson, John


Coleman, Donald
Luard, Evan
Urwin, Rt Hon T. W.


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Cowans, Harry
McCartney, Hugh
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
McElhone, Frank
Ward, Michael


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Maclennan, Robert
White, James (Pollok)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Magee, Bryan
Whitehead, Phillip


Dewar, Donald
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Dormand, J. D.
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Durant, Tony
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Dykes, Hugh
Mills, Peter



Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE AYE


English, Michael
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. Alf Bates and


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Mr. Thomas Cox


Fairgrieve, Russell




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Bradford, Rev Robert
Clemitson, Ivor


Bidwell, Sydney
Carson, John
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Body, Richard
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Motion made, and Question put.

That the draft European Assembly Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.—[Mr. Tinn.]

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 64.

Cryer, Bob
Lee, John
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Litterick, Tom
Richardson, Miss Jo


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McCusker, H.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Farr, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rooker, J. W.


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McNamara, Kevin
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Flannery, Martin
Marten, Neil
Sedgemore, Brian


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Spearing, Nigel


Gould, Bryan
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Spriggs, Leslie


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moate, Roger
Stallard, A. W.


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Molloy, William
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Molyneaux, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kerr, Russell
O'Halloran, Michael
Woof, Robert


Kilfedder, James
Ovenden, John



Kinnock, Neil
Paisley, Rev Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Lambie, David
Parry, Robert
Mr. Max Madden and


Lamond, James
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. David Stoddart


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will appreciate that we have had considerable difficulties in the debate that has just concluded. Nevertheless, the issue that we have debated is of the greatest constitutional importance. Since the Government did not obtain 40 per cent. of the vote, could you advise the House whether this matter is binding upon this Parliament and people?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That magic figure of 40 per cent. does not concern the Chair. The only time that the number 40 concerns the Chair is when fewer than 40 hon. Members take part in a Division, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the quorum.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the points of order at the beginning of the last debate I raised a matter that may inadvertently have cast some aspersion on others. Can you confirm that the original regulations that were published on 31 January, which the House has just approved, were reported on by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on 20 February—House of Commons 33/XVI—where, in seven paragraphs, the Committee drew attention to matters relating to the unexpected use of powers?
Can you also confirm that the Twelfth Report of the Joint Committee—House of Commons 33/XVIII—reported that the Committee did not wish to draw the attention of the House to revised draft orders that were laid before the Committee on 6 March? If that is what you can agree to as correct, I think that it disposes of one of the matters that took some time in the first part of the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member. It relieves the mind of the occupant of the Chair to have the hon. Gentleman's support in this matter. I agree with what he said

Mr. Wm. Ross: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that the point of order that I raised earlier did not refer to either of the two published reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It drew attention to the fact that the minutes of evidence that were to appear as House of Commons Paper 33/XVII had not as yet been printed and were not available to the House.

Orders of the Day — CENTRAL LANCASHIRE NEW TOWN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

11.55 p.m.

Mr. George Rodgers: It is with particular pleasure that I grasp this opportunity to describe the successes that surround the enterprise known as the central Lancashire new town, though I do not intend to ignore or evade the problems and anxieties that perhaps inevitably accompany that success. The project going ahead in central Lancashire and straddling my constituency of Chorley is unique in many ways. It is not really a new town development at all. There are already three substantial towns contained within the designated area—Chorley, Leyland and Preston—and these well-established communities will, of course, remain in existence in their own right. The purpose of the enterprise is to utilise the powers and know-how of a


development corporation to attract industry, employment, improved housing and leisure amenities to an area in the Northwest region that has enormous potential for growth but requires the stimulus of investment and encouragement.
Originally, the concept, which was given the go-ahead by the then Secretary of State for the Environment in 1971, was planned to raise the population by about 180,000 by the year 2001, but this has recently been scaled down to 23,000, with an understanding that the local authorities will be consulted on any future beyond that. The role of the development corporation has changed, too. Instead of concentrating its activities exclusively on industry, commerce, new homes and amenities, it has become deeply involved in urban renewal. I believe this to be a completely new venture for any development corporation and one which could indicate a valuable new direction in which the knowledge and abilities in the possession of such bodies can be diverted to serve the older towns by stimulating urban renewal and generating industrial prosperity.
Far from allowing development corporations to slide into disuse, we should examine what is currently taking place in the Leyland, Chorley and Preston areas, where a partnership has been established with local authorities and joint teams set up to combat the problems of urban decay. The enterprise is proving enormously successful and should be extended to other districts in the North-West, especially in Lancashire, where there has been a long decline in traditional industries, such as coal and cotton, not to mention the necessity of revitalising thousands of terraced homes, most of which date from the turn of the century.
Already in central Lancashire the expertise of the development corporation has attracted a multitude of factories and thousands of job opportunities. Additionally, a thorough mix of rented and private housing has reversed the population drift that has afflicted so many communities in the North-West.
It would be folly if the experience and expertise gained by the partnership principle now established between local authorities and development corporations in central Lancashire was not taken advantage of and applied in meeting the wider problems of urban decay. 
While I am enthusiastic for the partnership between elected local government and the skills of the development corporations, I must sound a note of warning. There must always and without question be a democratic approach to new development. Misgivings are bound to arise if land usage is allowed that would impinge on the quality of the environment. The public must have access to accurate information about planning proposals and opportunity must be given for existing residents to make their views known to the local authorities and the development corporation. Should any changes take place in zoning arrangements, they will have to be publicly advertised to enable a community response. The Secretary of State must receive a report and, if he feels it is required must arrange for a public inquiry to be held. My hon. Friends the Members for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) and Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) have asked to be associated with these observations.
Democracy is often an inconvenient, even frustrating process. None the less, it is a philosophy that must be built into all our endeavours, and we should embrace its principles at every opportunity. There are immense difficulties in superimposing a new town on to an existing community. For my part, seeing the picture whole, I relish the advantages that it will bring to present and to future generations in my part of Lancashire. The concern of current generations for the well-being of coming generations is surely the hallmark of a civilised society. I welcome the thrust of prosperity that will be brought about by the central Lancashire investment, which will be repaid a thousandfold in years to come.
Not many weeks ago a Front Bench spokesman for the main Opposition spoke dolefully about a cut-back in the new town programme should his party ever achieve office. The proposition is totally absurd. It would mean leaving developments half-finished, an increased population without the necessary supporting services and amenities, and a vote of no confidence in the future of a sizeable area of Lancashire and its people.
I am reluctant to believe that any enlightened and responsible Minister would persist in that view once he had acquainted himself with the realities of the situation. Members of Parliament come and


go. Sometimes we feel our efforts are insignificant and soon forgotten. Occasionally we are given opportunity to be associated with an undertaking that can have favourable influence on the lives of many people—an enterprise that will have a valuable impact on the lives of those yet unborn. I believe that the central Lancashire new town project falls into that category.
In his reply I very much hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure me that he is prepared to examine the future of the development corporation and its most able staff. I firmly believe that a major contribution to the future prosperity of Lancashire can emerge from that study. I would like him to assure me that the democratic content of the new town project will remain intact. I should like him to confirm that the revised plan for central Lancashire has the full support of his Department and of the Government.
In drawing my remarks to a conclusion, I should like to refer briefly to three aspects of the central Lancashire new town that are of concern to both old residents and new. I mention them briefly because they are not the direct responsibility of my hon. Friend. However, they are of importance and he might be able to press these issues with his fellow Ministers as they have a bearing on the new town development.
The first is the requirement for a 24-hour service at the accident and emergency department of the Chorley hospital. It is ludicrous that an area with a massive increase in population and a cross-motorway system should operate only a part-time hospital emergency service. The people of the district rightly demand a 24-hour coverage by the casualty unit, and we will continue to campaign for a full and complete service until the need is recognised and provided.
Secondly, the new town authority should respond more readily to Government circulars relating to provision for disabled people. I want to see purpose-built accommodation for handicapped people as an integral part of its housing programme, and the construction of a centre to meet the requirements of the disabled people in our community.
Finally, the size of the new development and its multitude of interests war-

rants a local radio service. At present, Chorley does not fall into the editorial area covered by Radio Blackburn. I have no complaints about Radio Blackburn, but the Chorley area is remote from both Merseyside and Manchester. A local radio service would do much to bind together the new population and the old. Both populations meet difficulties in adjusting to the changes that are taking place in central Lancashire. A local radio station would create common ground and a common forum to highlight and help overcome such difficulties.
I am grateful for the hearing that I have been given and trust my hon. Friend will make a helpful response.

12.3 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): No one who does my job can long remain unaware of the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) in the doings of central Lancashire new town. Tonight he has given us a useful opportunity to take stock of what the new town has already achieved and what remains to be done.
Central Lancashire—or CLNT as its friends and no doubt its opponents know it—has always had a double task, like all the third-generation new towns which were grafted on to existing towns. First, it has had to deal with the task of generating the growth needed to carry through its task of enlarging the existing urban settlements to produce a community in which the whole population, both new and existing, could find the full range of housing, employments, shopping, and amenities. Secondly, and equally importantly, there has been the task of updating the existing urban structure so that it could provide a quality of life comparable with that which we have come to expect from our new towns.
The new town has had to do this against a background of considerable uncertainty. No sooner had the area been designated than questions began to arise about the scale of the proposed development. I hope that our review of new town policy has laid that problem. CLNT now has a clear population target—to induce growth in population of 23,000, which, with natural growth expected to be about 15,000, will carry the population of the designated area to 285,000 by about 1986.


In spite of the uncertainties, the new town has already gone a long way to meet its targets. Nearly one-third of the target population growth has already been achieved. This has involved not only a major programme of house building but activities to provide the necessary employment. So far, the development corporation has built 2,189 houses. In addition, it has laid out and serviced further land on which private enterprise has built another 1,080 houses. New villages have been appearing in various parts of the new town's area at Clayton Brook, Moss Side, Astley Park and Cop Lane. These are already showing how they will develop into communities that are pleasant to live in. The development corporation's housing programme is now running at about 1,000 dwellings a year, and a few more years should see the main part of this programme successfully accomplished.
The corporation has also been successful in the provision of employment. About 1,250 jobs have been created on land developed by the corporation. It has built 558,000 sq.ft. of factory space—about 70 per cent. of the total. The employment site at Walton Summit is more or less fully developed, and start has been made on new advance factory units on the Roman Way site, in the north of the new town and at Moss Side, in the west.
The way forward on this main-line new town activity of providing housing and jobs has been well mapped out. Following the completion of the new towns review, the development corporation has produced a revised implementation strategy. This has been done in close consultation with the county council as well as the three borough councils involved, and my Department has, of course, been kept informed at all stages. The development corporation finally settled and published this strategy last autumn.
This has identified the land that the development corporation thinks will be necessary to develop for the various purposes and shows roughly the sequence of housing development. For housing, the development corporation must make allowance for several types of demand. First, there is the straightforward demand from the expansion in the population. As

more people move into central Lancashire, so more housing will be needed.
Secondly, there is the demand from the existing population. Sizes of households are dropping, and people are naturally expecting to improve their standard of housing. There is thus a steady demand for more housing for the same population. Finally, there is the demand resulting from urban renewal.
In some parts of the designated area the densities of the existing houses are so high that any renewal is bound to result in some drop in the number of people accommodated, and some further housing must thus be found. For all these types of demand, the new town estimates that about 1,900 acres of land will be required. It will not develop all this land itself. Much will be developed by private enterprise or by other forms of public sector housing such as housing associations.
To balance this creation of housing, a substantial amount of new employment will be required. The development corporation thinks that about 700 acres of land will need to be developed for this purpose. Some of this will be at the large site at Midgery Lane, in the north of the area, but a number of other smaller sites are also planned.
To support all these proposals, the development corporation will have to invest substantially in the infrastructure—particularly in the road network. The decision of the Secretary of State on the outline plan indicated approval of some sections of road investment—most notably part of the western primary route to link housing areas in Leyland to the centres of employment further north. But the development corporation has further plans, which will have to be examined carefully.
There has been a considerable amount of public interest in the various proposals for roads around the western side of Preston. Some of these emanate from the county council, as the highway authority; others are more closely linked to new town development and will be primarily the responsibility of the development corporation. My Department has just received the final proposals for the Ingol distributor road, which are intended to improve the links between the new housing area at Ingol and the centre of Preston. We have received many objections to the compulsory purchase order associated


with these proposals, and there will be a public inquiry later in the year at which all the relevant questions will be examined. In particular, I expect it to look at the basic question whether the road is needed.
Elsewhere in the designated area, other road proposals have caused considerable and understandable concern. One that I know is of interest to my hon. Friend is the Eaves Green district distributor road, in the Yarrow valley, in his constituency. My Department has received a submission from the development corporation seeking approval for this road as part of the corporation's housing plans. So far we have not had any representations against the present proposals. I understand that the idea has been floated that a northward extension might be desirable. Such a further development would, of course, have to be examined on its own merits. Any representations against it—or, for that matter, against the present proposal—would, of course, be carefully considered.
So far I have been talking exclusively about the first half of the work of the CLNT—the main-line new town development. The CLNT has, however, been in the van in the other task of new towns grafted on to existing centres—urban renewal. The problems of urban renewal in central Lancashire cover a wide spectrum. In Preston and Chorley the problems are those of renewing mid- to late-Victorian urban settlements, with all that that implies in terms of crowded housing, lack of amenities, road patterns unsuited to modern traffic, and lack of open space and amenities. Leyland, on the other hand, is much more a product of this century—and at a time when planning controls were mostly a thing of the future. Hence, there can be no question of the development corporation's going ahead with a single blueprint. Each area must be examined and the best solution for each particular problem devised.
The three borough councils have always made clear that they looked for the positive involvement by the development corporation in this task. What has become clear to the development corporation is that this involvement is not some optional extra to its main task but is an integral part of the new development. It is no use tempting people out to new villages and ignoring the areas from which they

have moved. It is not enough to enable firms to acquire modern purpose-built factories. Something also needs to be done about the worn-out structure left behind. If we are to end up with a new town, comprehensively planned and with out pockets of deprivation, and not merely a collection of new villages around the existing urban core, the development corporation and the local authorities have got to work in partnership to deal with the ensuing problems.
The CLNT has become well involved in the task. In all three boroughs schemes have been started or have been approved to tackle these problems. In Chorley, renovation and improvement has been successfully carried out at Cowling Brow, and work is soon to start on new housing with a large public open space. In South Ribble, a scheme has recently been approved to deal with a particular pocket of land where nearly all the problems of urban renewal come together. In Preston where the problems are greatest, the corporation and the borough council are co-operating on a scheme for Plungington. This will probably involve some redevelopment on areas already cleared or marked for clearance, and much renovation of the remaining areas. Already a general improvement area has been declared for nearly 450 houses, and further similar schemes will follow.
We cannot look for anything spectacular from this work of urban renewal. The steady battle to overcome the forces of time and decay does not yield victories which make headlines. What we can hope to see is a gradual improvement, area by area, of the three towns. This involvement of a development corporation is a relatively novel approach to the task. New towns have built up an enduring reputation for the way in which they have managed to create new communities. Now these skills are being turned to the pressing task of revitalising existing communities. We shall have to watch the way in which central Lancashire develops in order to see whether there is here a solution which could have other applications. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend's remarks because much of what he said may have relevance elsewhere in the future.
My hon. Friend kindly gave me notice of a couple of points in his speech that he recognised were not the responsibility of


my Department. His concern about the lack of a 24-hour emergency service at Chorley hospital is, of course, known to me. I understand that the issue is shortly to be discussed with the regional health authority and I undertake to continue to keep an eye on the situation.
The provision of a complete local radio service is an idea to which the Government are very much committed. At present, efforts are being made to provide stations to serve all parts of the country. Once this has been achieved more specific needs can be properly considered.
My hon. Friend mentioned the problems of providing purpose-built accommodation for disabled people. New towns have a responsibility for housing the disadvantaged and I shall ask my officials to discuss that question with the corporation.
I hope that what I have said will reassure my hon. Friend of the Government's commitment to what is going on at the CLNT. Like him, I was disturbed by what the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) said about the possible future of the new town if a Conservative Government were returned to power. I assure my hon. Friend that now that the reappraisal of the new town programme has been carried out, we are firmly committed to the programme that I have described. I am sure that he agrees with me that there is every reason for continuing with the task to which we have set our hand.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Second Reading Committee

Wednesday 14 March 1979

The Commitee consisted of the following Members:


Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (in the Chair)


Archer, Mr. Peter (Solicitor-General)
Kilfedder, Mr. James (Down, North)


Bates, Mr. Alf (Bebington and Ellesmere Port)
McKay, Mr. Allen (Penistone)


Boardman, Mr. H. (Leigh)
Morton, Mr. George (Manchester, Moss Side)


Clegg, Mr. Walter (North Fylde)
Neubert, Mr. Michael (Romford)


Douglas-Mann, Mr. Bruce (Mitcham and Morden)
Sandelson, Mr. Neville (Hayes and Harlington)


Goodlad, Mr. Alastair (Northwich)
Sever, Mr. John (Birmingham, Ladywood)


Gow, Mr. Ian (Eastbourne)
Shersby, Mr. Michael (Uxbridge)


Grant, Mr. Anthony (Harrow, Central)
Stradling Thomas, Mr. John (Monmouth)

Orders of the Day — ARBITRATION BILL [Lords]

10.30 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Arbitration Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
This is a Bill about improvements in the law of commercial arbitration. Arbitration is a method of settling disputes by referring them for adjudication to a private tribunal of the parties' own choice rather than to the courts of law. Arbitration proceedings have a number of features which the commercial community find attractive, such as speed, informality and privacy, and frequently an arbitrator who is himself an expert in the field concerned. These features have helped to make arbitration a normal aspect of commercial life and an essential part of international trade.
All the major trading nations are bound together by agreements on the enforce-

ment of arbitral awards. The United Kingdom is a country which lives by trade to an extent greater than does any other major industrialised country, and for that reason alone it is important that our arbitration law and procedure should be efficient and effective. But there is a further important reason why our arbitration arrangements should compare well with those of other countries. Efficient arbitration is part of the range of legal, financial and trading services offered here, particularly in the City of London, and, as such, it can be a valuable source of income and foreign exchange. London is already one of the world's leading centres for arbitration. A very high percentage of the world's shipping arbitrations are carried out in London and very many commodity arbitrations are conducted by various members of the London commodity exchanges."London arbitration"is a term which has been used in international contracts for many years.
The needs and wishes of the commercial community change from time to time, and it is important to ensure that our arbitration arrangements remain in step with other developments. Experience with cases and changing practices have suggested some modifications in our arbitration law.
Our law on arbitration is contained largely in the Arbitration Act 1950, which consolidated earlier enactments, as amended by the Arbitration Act 1975. The 1975 Act dealt with accession to the New York convention on enforcement of foreign arbitration awards.
Part I of the 1950 Act provides in section 21 a procedure—the case stated procedure—by which the courts can control arbitrators and ensure that they conform with the law. That procedure has been subjected to a great deal of criticism. The Bill before us is concerned largely with the problems now arising from the case stated procedure, which has become a real deterrent to the use of London as an arbitration centre.
The case stated procedure was introduced into arbitration as a nineteenth century adaptation of a similar procedure used in criminal proceedings, and it was applied to arbitration under the Common Law Procedure Act 1854. Until then, a decision could only be upheld or quashed. If the decision was quashed, the arbitration had to be started all over again. The case stated procedure, by contrast, allowed a point of law to be determined without putting the whole proceedings in jeopardy. So at the time it was a useful reform.
The problems have arisen, as so often, because a measure which is sensible in some circumstances has become the universal panacea as a matter of course. Although on the face of the section the arbitrator has a discretion whether or not to state his award in the form of a special case, subject to a discretion in the High Court to order him to do so, the result of certain decisions is that the arbitrator usually adopts the special case procedure on the application of any of the parties to the arbitration, even if there is no great sum of money in dispute and even if the answer is reasonably clear, provided that it can be argued that there is a real point of law which is material to the

decision. If he declines, he will normally be ordered to do so.
It is difficult to discourage unmeritorious applications, as a decision has to be taken on the use of the special procedure at a stage where often the arbitrator has not specified any findings of fact upon which the decision might be based. It is difficult to be certain that no serious question of law may be in issue, and the doubt is usually resolved in favour of the applicant.
Furthermore, where a final award is in the form of a case stated, as it may be under the section, there is no financial award operative pending the decision on the point of law. So the procedure has become capable of being used by undeserving parties for the sole purpose of postponing the day of wrath when they will have to pay up.
In many modern arbitrations the large amounts of money at issue may be important for the liquidity and cash flow of the companies involved, they may entail large interest burdens, or they may threaten companies with the prospect of changing large sums at rates of foreign exchange which they consider disadvantageous. So a company may be tempted to use the case stated procedure merely as a means of postponing the date of payment of any award, and if the potential advantages of delay are substantial the company may not be deterred by the costs arising from any further litigation. Indeed, even after the High Court has given its decision on the point at issue, further delays may be engineered by appeal to the Court of Appeal and even to the House of Lords. Therefore, the whole advantage of arbitration as a speedy process may be nullified.
The difficulty about the case stated procedure is aggravated because there is no provision in English law for the parties to contract out of the procedure. There are now an increasing number of supra-national development contracts, for example, for the construction of a dam or a town in one of the developing countries. The parties are often consortia which directly or indirectly include foreign Governments or their agencies, and such Governments may be understandably reluctant to submit to the jurisdiction of foreign courts, whether English or otherwise. Accordingly, even if they


prefer to have their disputes resolved in England, with English arbitrators, they are still deterred by the case stated procedure.
But there was a problem about simply abolishing the procedure. The inescapable case stated procedure had the advantage that English commercial law as administered by arbitrators remained consistent with that developed in the courts, and consistent, too, between one arbitrator and another. The consequent coherence, predictability and completeness of commercial law in the United Kingdom has been largely responsible for its international prestige and authority and has helped to establish it as a favoured choice of law among the international commercial community.
These problems have been considered recently in various quarters. They were alluded to by Lord Diplock, a judge of great learning and experience in this field and president of the Institute of Arbitrators, in his Alexander lecture. Then they were considered in another place on 15 May last year in a debate initiated by Lord Hacking, a distinguished international lawyer with great experience of arbitration in New York. On that occasion my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor undertook to consider the matter as one of some urgency.
On 6 June, less than three weeks later, my noble Friend had in his possession a report by the Commercial Court Committee—Cmnd. 7284—a committee consisting of a number of distinguished judges, lawyers and commercial men, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Donaldson, who speaks with great authority and experience in these matters. I offer my tribute to the committee for the thoroughness and clarity of its report. Not all its recommendations are uncontroversial, but that does not diminish our debt to the committee.
Broadly, the Government have accepted the committee's recommendations. The Bill contains provisions which would remove the deterrents to arbitration in London, while at the same time allowing the continued development of commercial law on a coherent basis. The special case stated procedure would be abolished and replaced by a more limited right of appeal on a point of law only, and parties in many international arbitration agree-

ments would be able to exclude even that right of appeal if they so wished.
Clause 1 contains a number of provisions. First, it repeals section 21 of the Arbitration Act 1950 and with it the case stated procedure. It then abolishes the jurisdiction of the High Court to set aside or remit arbitration awards on the grounds of errors of law on the face of the award—a procedure which discouraged arbitrators from giving reasons for their awards. It establishes instead a limited right of appeal to the High Court on points of law.
In addition, clause 1 imposes limitations on appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal beyond those applying at present. It provides that no appeal to the Court of Appeal shall be permitted without leave either of the High Court or of the Court of Appeal itself. So the kind of appeal which the Court of Appeal recently described in the case of William H. Pim Junior v. Kyprianou as an abuse of the procedure will no longer be possible.
Finally, clause 1 provides that the High Court may require arbitrators to give reasons for their award, a practice which would bring us more into line with other countries.
Clause 2 enables the High Court to determine preliminary points of law arising during the arbitration so as to avoid the delays which would arise if it were necessary solemnly to conclude the arbitration and then risk discovering that it had proceded on a false basis.
Clauses 3 and 4 provide for rights to make agreements excluding the jurisdiction of the courts altogether. The question of exclusions is not easy. As I said earlier, there is at present no right under English law to contract out. This follows from the judgment in Czarnikow v. Roth, Schmidt and Company in 1922, when the Court of Appeal held that it was against public policy to allow parties to an agreement to oust the jurisdiction of the courts—saying that there shall be no Alsatia in England where the King's writ does not run. That is the position under the law of England and Wales.
Under Scottish law the position is different, since section 3 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 allows parties to an arbitration agreement to contract out of the case stated procedure.


This Bill affects the law of England and Wales only, but it has the effect of moving the law of England and Wales in the direction of Scottish law.
However, in its report the Commercial Court Committee recommended that the law in England and Wales should reflect the different circumstances of the various types of arbitration. So clause 3 provides that parties to an arbitration agreement, other than a domestic agreement and one relating to special category disputes—that is, an international agreement—should be free at any time to exclude the right of appeal to the High Court. Parties such as foreign Governments involved in supra-national development contracts could then ensure that they could use English arbitrations without fear—if that be the word that seems appropriate to them—of having to submit to the jurisdiction of the High Court.
But clause 3 provides that in the case of domestic arbitrations, that is, arbitrations not involving foreign nationals or companies, the right of appeal to the High Court can be excluded only after the arbitration has begun. The reasoning is that if the right of exclusion applied at any time, a party in a weak bargaining position at the time of the contract might be bullied by a stronger party into agreeing in advance of any dispute to forgo the benefits of the new right of appeal to the High Court.
Arbitrations occur not only in major commercial transactions between what the noble lord Lord Hailsham in another place called the grandees. The procedure may apply to a fairly modest arrangement between humbler folk. One party may be a small retailer or a consumer and he may have little option but to accept the standard or specified form of contract. But when a dispute has already arisen, the need for protection is less evident, and accordingly the Bill would allow the parties to agree to exclusion once that stage had been reached. Thus, we have the major international agreements and domestic agreements.
Clause 4 makes particular provision for a third category described in the report of the Commercial Court Committee as special category disputes. The term embraces disputes arising out of maritime and insurance contracts and contracts

relating to commodities. Such disputes form a large proportion of those arbitrated in London each year. Clause 4 provides that in these cases an exclusion agreement should be effective if it is made after an arbitration has begun. Usually the parties to these contracts, where they are international in character, are of more equal bargaining power than in the case of domestic arbitration agreements, and it might be suggested that they should have the right to contract out before a dispute has arisen and arbitration has begun.
The Commercial Court Committee was influenced by four considerations. First, it reported that there is no evidence of any very widespread desire to be able to contract out of a right of judicial review. Second, the committee believed that the right of review by the courts over a wide field of arbitrations is essential if English law is to develop comprehensively and so maintain its place as the first choice of law in international commerce. Third, it was troubled that if contracting out were permitted freely a contracting-out clause might become a normal term in standard form contracts, so that often the parties would not apply their minds to the question. Fourth, is suspected that the present dissatisfaction with abuses of judicial review may evaporate after the commercial community has experienced the new form of procedure in the Bill.
The committee recommended that for a period of two to three years the right of appeal should be entrenched in these special category disputes to the same extent as in domestic arbitration agreements. At the end of this period the advantages of the new system provided for in the Bill could be examined to determine whether the exclusion should be allowed before as well as after arbitration has begun.
Clause 4 reflects those recommendations with added flexibility by enabling the Secretary of State by order to remove the so-called entrenchment if and when it seems appropriate, subject to control by either House of Parliament.
But this solution has not won universal approval. There are those who are troubled that the commercial community may find the inability to contract out of judicial review a disincentive to seeking arbitration in London. In another


place Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran drew attention to the matter. The maritime committee of the Society of Labour Lawyers has expressed anxiety, and yesterday I received letters from the president of the London Maritime Arbitrators' Association and from the Grain and Feed Trade Association.
The latter suggested two fairly limited amendments, but the former, in a careful and, if I may say so, well reasoned case, proposed more radical amendments to the Bill. It would, I think, be better if I said no more about the subject today. I have not yet had time properly to consider them, let alone to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I take this opportunity to tell the Committee that I have received the proposal, but it would be quite wrong for me to encourage any hopes or any fears. If the Government or any hon. Member is minded to initiate any further discussions on the question, there will be an opportunity at a later stage.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Among the suggestions made by the people who have communicated with my right hon. and learned Friend has there been included a suggestion that as a condition for an appeal being allowed to proceed, which the court has power to impose under clause 1, there should be a requirement that the amount of the arbitrator's award and an amount in respect of costs be paid into court? It appears to me that that would remove a substantial part of the incentive to make a frivolous appeal solely for the purpose of delay and would substantially alleviate the anxieties that have been expressed about retaining the right of appeal.
Has that been suggested and will my right hon. and learned Friend consider in advance of our reaching the Committee stage whether such an amendment to the Bill would be practicable?

The Solicitor-General: It is a suggestion which I have received, and as my hon. Friend will know, it was considered in another place. I appreciate that although it cannot necessarily apply to appeals by claimants and respondents, it would eliminate the fear that a reluctant respondent might abuse the procedure in order to delay the unhappy day when he has to pay up. Beyond that, I hope that

my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not anticipate anything which might take place at any later stage on the Bill. I promise that that, along with everything else, will be considered with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I think that it would be much better for me not to say anything either way at this stage.

Mr. Ian Gow: Could the Solicitor General tell the Committee whether the representations made in the two letters to which he has referred were made to the Lord Chancellor? I ask that because the proposals which form the basis of the Bill were published as long ago as July of last year, and the Bill itself was introduced into another place at the beginning of January this year. Were those matters considered by the Lord Chancellor?

The Solicitor-General: Certainly, that has happened in respect of some of the proposals that I mentioned. I do not know about those specific proposals, but it is fair to say that representations along those lines, and from broadly the same sources, had been made earlier. I fully understand the point that no one will benefit if, at this late stage, we start to have major amendments to the Bill which could only have the effect of delaying matters.

Mr. Michael Neubert: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify a point for me? He spoke of having received representations recently from three groups—

The Solicitor-General: I mentioned two.

Mr. Neubert: The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the maritime committee of the Society of Labour Lawyers. He also mentioned two others. Then he spoke of the"former"and the"latter ". Could he say of which he was speaking favourably and of which less favourably in the comments that he subsequently made?

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry to have been more than usually confusing in my formulation. I did not intend to say that I had had any direct representations from the maritime committee of the Society of Labour Lawyers. I referred to two letters, one from the Grain and Feed


Trade Association and the other from the London Maritime Arbitrators' Association. I was not conscious of speaking either more or less favourably of either. I said that the letter from the Grain and Feed Trade Association contained two limited proposals for amendment, whereas that from the London Maritime Arbitrators' Association contained rather broader proposals. I did not intend to say more than that, and certainly I did not intend to imply any value judgments.
Before I leave the point, perhaps I should add that in another place my noble Friend was persuaded that the range of arbitrations where there was to be no right to contract out at the time of contract should be substantially reduced by excepting cases in which the contract is governed by a law other than that of England and Wales. So already, I think, the area of controversy is substantially reduced.
The other clauses in the Bill involve minor, if significant, amendments arising mainly from recommendations of the Commercial Court Committee. They provide for sanctions against parties who fail to comply with the orders of an arbitrator, the appointment of arbitrators and arbitration awards, and the application of certain provisions of part I of the Arbitration Act 1950.
Since the days when the law merchant was developing in courts of piepoudre, the commercial community have sought means of deciding their disputes quickly but in a manner which should gain the confidence of all concerned. A walk through St. Stephen's Hall, past Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, the father of our commercial law, should be enough to remind us that our legal system has responded to that quest according to the changing needs and circumstances of succeeding generations.
I am sure that all members of the Committee will recognise that the City of London and other centres of arbitration in England and Wales ought not to be hampered in their ability both to foster the interests of traders and to make a sizeable contribution to our foreign exchange earnings. The Bill will remove deterrents in our arbitration practices which have emerged in recent years and replace them with procedures which will

be attractive to all potential parties to arbitration agreements. I commend the Bill to the Committee and to the House with the hope that it will have a speedy passage.

10.54 a.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: The Committee will be grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the clear way in which he has commended the Bill to the Committee. As the Solicitor-General pointed out, nearly 29 years have passed since the Arbitration Act 1950—the principal arbitration Act which governs our law on this topic today—received Royal Assent. The 1950 Act was a consolidation measure of previous Acts of Parliament covering the period 1889 to 1934.
This Bill gives legislative effect to all, or virtually all, of the recommendations of the Commercial Court Committee which were published last July. That committee, as the Solicitor-General explained, was presided over by Mr. Justice Donaldson, and the Opposition certainly join in paying tribute to the work of the learned judge and of the committee.
The Bill makes a very important change in our arbitration law, but it is a change that we welcome. The basis of section 21 of the 1950 Act rests upon the famous judgment delivered by Lord Justice Bankes, as he then was, in the case of Czarnikow v. Roth, Schmidt and Company in 1922. Mr. Blenkinsop, you may not be wholly familiar with the judgment of that learned judge. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh! "]. I was not going any further than that, Mr. Blenkinsop—you may be. But certainly the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) and I, when we were studying law, before deceiving the examiners to enable us to practice as solicitors, became familiar with it. That was a famous case and it is worth reminding the Committee of part of the judgment quoted in appendix 2 of Cmnd. 7284 There is a gem at the end which one may think not wholly inappropriate at this juncture of our affairs.

The Solicitor-General: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would not miss that.

Mr. Gow: The Solicitor-General is quite right, but we shall leave the savoury to the end and move first to the hors-d'oeuvre. In the 1950 Act we were anxious not to oust the jurisdiction of the


courts, and it was that which concerned Lord Bankes. He said:
 The ground of objection to the rule is that as an agreement it ousts the jurisdiction of the Courts of law, and is consequently against public policy and void…commercial arbitrations…will continue their present popularity…so long as the law retains sufficient hold over them to prevent and redress any injustice on the part of the arbitrator ".
I believe that clause 1 of the Bill is wholly in conformity with the principle laid down by Lord Bankes, because we have not removed the ultimate jurisdiction of the High Court and, on a point of law, it will still be possible for the High Court to deal with a matter referred to it under clause 1 of the Bill.
The learned judge continued:
 to secure that the law that is administered by an arbitrator is in substance the law of the land and not some home-made law of the particular arbitrator or the particular association.
I skip a few sentences there and come to the point of great interest to the Committee. The learned judge—now, alas, long deceased—said:
 At present no individual or association is, so far as I am aware, outside the law except a trade union.
That comment was made in 1922. Lord Bankes went on:
 To put such associations as the Refined Sugar Association in a similar position would in my opinion be against public policy. Unlimited power does not conduce to reasonableness of view or conduct.
I shall now quote with approval from only two other parts of the report of the Commercial Court Committe. Paragraph 17 states:
 The most obvious disadvantage of any such right 
—to judicial review—
 is that it conflicts with one of the prime objects of arbitration as a means of resolving commercial disputes, namely the achievement of a speedy and final decision.
The Solicitor-General touched on this point. One of the reasons why there has been some loss of arbitration from London in recent years is that one of the prime purposes of arbitration—a speedy and quick decision—has been diminished by the operation of section 21 of the 1950 Act. The Bill puts that right. In my opinion, that will mean that some of the arbitration work which has been lost from London and has gone overseas will now

be attracted back to London. That is an important consideration.
Before I came to the last quotation, we may reflect upon another truth about the Bill. Perhaps it has crossed your mind, Mr. Blenkinsop, that this Parliament has outlived its useful life. That is a thought that comes to me not from time to time, but almost all the time. However, honesty compels me to admit that those thoughts ought to be interrupted when we contemplate the Solicitor-General, because he has reminded us that even this Parliament is still capable of useful work. This is a very useful Bill and for the reasons—

The Solicitor-General: For the record, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would confirm that that was a very loose paraphrase of what I said.

Mr. Gow: I accept the rebuke. We believe that the Bill will enhance still further the high reputation of English law and English arbitration law in the whole international community. We think that we are likely to draw back to London some of those arbitration cases which we have been losing in recent years. English law and English arbitrations have long been favoured by those drawing up international trading contracts. We do not want to see this high reputation diminish. The whole purpose of arbitration is that disputes may be settled quickly. I have told the Committee that I am a solicitor. The legal profession is anxious that disputes should be settled quickly. The quicker they are settled, the more work we can do. I see that the Lord Commissioner, the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Bates), may doubt that, but I am sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden will confirm that those of us engaged in practising the law are anxious for a speedy solution of our clients' problems. We can then go on to settle even more problems.
My last quotation is in paragraph 21 of the report:
 A much more serious objection 
—that is, an objection to the current law—
 is that the procedure is capable of being used by undeserving parties for the sole purpose of postponing the day when they have to meet their commitments.


That point was referred to by the Solicitor-General. An abuse has grown up in recent years. An appeal may be made by way of case stated not because there is any genuine hope of the appeal being successful but in order to postpone the payment of an award that has been made by an arbitrator.
A number of amendments were made to the Bill in another place both in Committee and on Report. I believe that those admendments have improved the Bill. Unlike some Labour Members—not necessarily members of this Committee—I am in favour of a second Chamber.
I congratulate the Government on having introduced the Bill first into another place where there is a galaxy of legal talent. I should not say that galaxy is any greater than the legal talent on the Government Benches or, indeed, among my hon. Friends, but that there is a galaxy of legal talent in the other place few can doubt. The breadth of knowledge and experience brought to bear in another place was most impressive.
We wish the Bill well. We hope that it will soon be on the statute book. I hope that the two letters to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred have already been considered by his noble Friend. We should not allow those letters to delay the passage of the Bill, although the Committee and the Solicitor-General will want to give proper consideration to them. We hope that the Bill will be on the statute book before this Parliament is dissolved and that both may come about very soon.

11.6 a.m.

Mr. Brace Douglas-Mann: I fear that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is likely to be disappointed in at least one of those anticipations.
I also welcome the Bill. I should make clear that in welcoming it I declare not an interest but a lack of interest. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General referred to evidence submitted by the maritime committee of the Society of Labour Lawyers. Although I am the chairman of that Society, I am not a member of the maritime committee and by no means do I necessarily accept the views which it has submitted, although I have read them with interest.

Moreover, although both in the House of Commons and in another place we are somewhat prone to have the legal profession over-represented and probably arbitrators and those involved in arbitration under-represented, I have never in some 25 years of legal practice—I do not know about the hon. Member for Eastbourne—had occasion to be involved with an arbitration. Therefore, I approach the subject in a state of blissful ignorance of the problems likely to arise.
I suspect, having noted the imposing weight of judicial opinion expressed in the Lords specifically on the exclusion of the exclusion of the right of appeal for certain categories of arbitrations, that the matter was approached by their Lordships with a degree of sympathy which might not have obtained if they had had as much experience as some of those who have made representations to me of dealing with arbitrations and of cases where arbitrations have not come to London because of the fear of the case stated procedure.
My view as a lawyer is that I am reluctant to see the right of appeal to the courts excluded in any circumstances. All that I am anxious to see is that, where there is a right of appeal to the courts, it shall not be used as an abuse. It is clear from expressions of opinion in speeches in another place and elsewhere that it is the fear of parties to arbitrations that the right of appeal will be abused for the purpose of delaying the making of payment. Where the amount involved is substantial and the costs involved in an appeal are small in relation to it, it is well worth putting off the payment of £1 million or so for the year necessary to get an appeal determined. Frequently, the sums involved can be larger than that.
I think it desirable that the Bill should proceed as rapidly as possible. It may not be necessary for any amendments to be made to ensure that the procedures are not abused, but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider whether it is desirable to amend the Bill to make it clear that in normal circumstances it should be a condition of going to appeal that the amount of the award and a sum towards the costs of the appeal should be lodged in court to avoid the attractions of appeal solely for the purpose of delay.
Subject to that, I do not wish to go along with the recommendations made by the maritime committee of the Society of Labour Lawyers or some of the others who have sent documents to me proposing the radical change to allow the right to exclude the right of appeal in the categories of cases which the Bill excepts. I feel that, provided that there is the assurance that the right of appeal cannot be seriously abused, it would be preferable to leave the Bill as it stands and to rely on the courts to ensure that their procedures are not abused.

11.11 a.m.

Mr. Michael Neubert: As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said, proceedings on the Bill in another place attracted a galaxy of legal luminaries—including the Lord Chancellor, the noble Lords Lord Hailsham, Lord Rawlinson and Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls—to such a degree that the impression is left that these issues are for conduct in a sphere not accessible to ordinary mortals such as myself. That impression is reinforced this morning by the presence of the Solicitor-General and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne. As a layman, qualified neither in the law nor in arbitration, I tread with the utmost trepidation in this area.
Nevertheless, I have been struck by the paradox that whereas the prime purpose of the Bill is proclaimed to be the facilitating and increasing of the use of London arbitration by foreign business men, a substantial section of the commercial community in this country remains not only unconvinced of that but convinced that it will lead to the reverse, namely, that what is proposed in the Bill may lead to a decline in the use of London arbitration.

The Solicitor-General: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm what is certainly my impression, that the criticisms made of the Bill are not to the effect that it will lead to a decline in arbitrations in London but that it does not go far enough. On any showing there is an improvement, but it is said that the improvement is not sufficiently sweeping.

Mr. Neubert: That is not my understanding of the representations that have been made. If I may go on to develop

the point that is at issue, which has been touched on in all the speeches so far this morning, it is to question whether it is right to have different regimes for the domestic dispute—where there is no question but that it is accepted—for the special category dispute and for the supranational question. It is contended that if it is not possible to opt out of judicial review in the area of special category disputes, that may be a disincentive, and whether it leads to decline is perhaps not as important as whether it is in itself right.
I understand that the decision is not final in the Bill. It is open, after the passage of two or three years, for the matter to be reviewed, and the enabling clause is there. But all members of the Committee will concede that in the course of two or three years business could be lost, and not only during that period but lost for all time because practice and tradition play an important part in arbitration. All I wish to do is to put a marker down on this point in the belief that it might be more appropriate for us to return to it by way of amendment in Committee where the issues could be discussed at greater length and in greater detail.
Of the four reasons which the Solicitor-General advanced this morning for the exception being made, one or two are less strong than others, and there is a doubt on which he did not touch, that even in supra-national contracts the fact that aspects of those contracts might include maritime, insurance or commodity matters—the three areas excluded under the present proposals—might cause some hesitation on the part of those concerned in deciding on London arbitration.
Therefore, while welcoming as I must, as somebody anxious to see the furtherance of trade and, in particular, an increase in invisible earnings for the United Kingdom—a need that will become increasingly important with the continued malaise of manufacturing industry—I have reservations about that aspect of the Bill and look forward to the opportunity of discussing with my colleagues and with the Government the detail of those doubts when we come to a later stage.

11.16 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: May I have the leave of the Committee to speak again?


Until a few moments ago, it was an application that I was not proposing to make because the danger on these occasions is that I am unable to contain my normal loquacity and it is at this stage in a Second Reading Committee that I am liable to get myself into trouble.
I thank all the hon. Members who have spoken for the general welcome which they have given to the Bill.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) emphasised how important it is at this stage that the Bill should make speedy progress towards the statute book. I fully accept that that is the overriding consideration, whatever else may happen. Beyond that, I hope that he will forgive me if I am not drawn into the more controversial matters to which he adverted, which perhaps are not immediately connected with our commercial arbitrations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) mentioned the possibility of making it a condition of taking an arbitration to the courts that there should be some payment in which would remove the incentive to abuse the procedure in order to delay the day when one had to dip into one's pocket. He said that that would probably not entail an amendment to the Bill. He had considered already clause 1(4) which would enable conditions to be attached to any leave to appeal, and one of the conditions which might be made is precisely the condition that he had in mind. If my hon. Friend wishes to take the matter further we can consider it at a later stage.
The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) gave the impression, I thought, that there were suggestions among the users of arbitration that the Bill made matters worse than they are already. I fully take the points to which he adverted, and obviously they will have to be considered at a later stage. They will be carefully considered. But he is, I think, labouring under a misapprehension, because the Bill abolishes a procedure which is manifestly capable of abuse and from which there is no right to contract out, replacing it with a much more limited procedure with limited rights of contracting out.

Mr. Neubert: My reservation is not about the provisions of the Bill as a

whole but only in relation to those special category disputes of which I was speaking. It is there that the doubts remain. I accept entirely that the Bill as a whole is an improvement.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful for that clarification, but even in relation to the special category disputes those who at the moment take part in such arbitrations are subject to the case stated procedure which is clearly capable of being abused and from which there is no escape. Whatever else may happen to the Bill in its present form, it abolishes that. It provides instead a much more limited right of appeal and says that in certain cases there shall be a right to contract out.
Even given all the assumptions which those who have spoken to the hon. Gentleman make, it must be accepted that the Bill makes some progress towards what they want, though I fully understand when they say that it does not go far enough. I think that it would perhaps be better if at this stage I restrained myself from further comment and undertook, as I am bound to undertake, that anything said at a later stage on the Bill will be carefully considered. I am grateful for the general welcome that the Committee has given to the Bill and have pleasure in commending it.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Arbitration Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

The Solicitor-General: May I seize the opportunity, Mr. Blenkinsop, to convey to you the gratitude of the Committee for the happy way in which you have presided over our deliberations and for the expedition with which, under your guidance, we have arrived at a conclusion.

Mr. Gow: On behalf of the Opposition, may I associate myself with those remarks.

The Chairman: That is very kind, but the proceedings were too short to justify any such thanks.

Committee rose at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock.

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Blenkinsop, Mr. Arthur (Chairman)
McKay, Mr. Allen


Bates, Mr.
Morton, Mr.


Boardman, Mr.
Neubert, Mr.


Douglas-Mann, Mr.
Sever, Mr.


Goodlad, Mr.
Solicitor-General, The


Gow, Mr.
Stradling Thomas, Mr. John

Orders of the Day — Second Reading Committee

Wednesday 14 March 1979

The Committee consisted of the following Members:


Mr. Victor Goodhew (in the Chair)


Anderson, Mr. Donald (Swansea, East)
Lyons, Mr. Edward (Bradford, West)

Bates, Mr. Alf (Bebington and Ellesmere Port)
Morgan, Mr. Geraint (Denbigh) Price, Mr. Christopher (Lewisham, West)


Body, Mr. Richard (Holland with Boston)
Richardson, Miss Jo (Barking)


Havers, Sir Michael (Wimbledon)
Silkin, Mr. S. C. (Attorney-General)


Hooson, Mr. Emlyn (Montgomery)
Skeet, Mr. T. H. H. (Bedford)


Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Robert (Ormskirk) Lawrence, Mr. Ivan (Burton)
Steen, Mr. Anthony (Liverpool, Wavertree)


Lyon, Mr. Alexander W. (York)
Stradling Thomas, Mr. John (Monmouth)

Orders of the Day — CONSENTS TO PROSECUTIONS BILL

4.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Consents to Prosecutions Bill ought to be read a Second time.
From time to time when Parliament establishes a criminal offence it decides that, for one reason or another, there shall be no prosecution for that offence without the consent of a prescribed authority. Sometimes the authority is the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General, sometimes the Director of Public Prosecutions, and occasionally some other Minister of the Crown, or the Director in the alternative.
The reasons for these provisions seem to have been many and various. In some instances they seem to have been the result of some parliamentary whim, the cause of which is lost in history. In other cases the reason is clear. Offences of particular gravity and sensitivity, where there may be a fine balance of

judgment of the public interest, will not infrequently be subject to a consent provision.
It is right that from time to time these provisions should be reviewed to demote or weed out those that are no longer needed. The Bill's principal purpose is to perform that function.
When, on 24 June 1977, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the setting up of a Royal Commission on criminal procedure, he added that pending the Commission's report studies would be made within government of various matters relating to prosecution authorities and procedures. An interdepartmental working party was accordingly set up to consider aspects of the prosecution system.
I have more than once referred to the intense pressure of work on both the department of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Law Officers' Department. That led to the inclusion within


the terms of reference of the working party of a detailed examination of the various consent requirements to which I have referred. The working party includes representatives of my Department, the Director's department, the Home Office, the police and the prosecuting solicitors. It concluded that a number of the consent functions now vested in the Attorney-General or the Law Officers of England and Wales could safely be transferred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Bill gives effect to that conclusion.
The transfer of these functions will make a modest but real contribution to expediting the administration of justice and easing the burden both upon my Department and upon that of the Director.
The enactments in respect of which the change is proposed are listed in the schedule to the Bill. Under most of the statutes listed, prosecutions take place extremely rarely. In several cases I cannot remember ever having received a request for my consent. For example, section 10(1) of the Agriculutural Credits Act 1928 makes it an offence to print for publication or publish any list of agricultural charges or the names of farmers who have created agricultural charges. My consent to prosecutions is required, but I can assure the Committee that my Department is not besieged by queues of angry farmers demanding penal action against offending publishers. The maximum penalty for that offence is £20.
Section 4(3) of the Coinage Offences Act 1936 makes it an offence to tender, utter or put off any coin which has been defaced by the stamping thereon of any names or words. Again my consent is required to a prosecution for that act of desecration, for which the penalty is a fine of £2.
However, about 100 cases under the prevention of corruption Acts are referred to me or to the Solicitor-General every year, as are also a number of applications for consent to prosecutions under the Explosive Substances Act 1883. In both cases the circumstances of the offence can vary enormously—from the trivial to the very serious and from the simple to the very complex.
I should make it clear that relatively trivial cases can often be as complex and

time-consuming as some of the more serious cases. The fact that a case is trivial does not mean that it is necessarily simple. The Committee will, I hope, agree that it does not justify the use of a Law Officer's time to consider whether to consent to the prosecution of a drunken driver charged with trying to slip a £5 note into a policeman's hand or the prosecution of a youngster experimenting with explosives in a garden shed. At present those cases have to come to the Law Officers.
Corruption cases in particular are often highly complicated, involving a great deal of detailed evidence. The consideration of these cases imposes a substantial burden upon the Law Officers and the resources of my Department and, in addition, on the department of the Director of Public Prosecutions in preparing the material for the Law Officers. Moreover, corruption cases often take a considerable time to reach court because of their complexity, and every reference of such a case to the Law Officers increases the delay.
I fully appreciate that corruption cases are sometimes highly sensitive politically, and that in such cases direct political responsibility is doubtless important. The Poulson series of cases was an example of that. It was, I believe, entirely right that my predecessor and then I myself should have had the ultimate control and decided which cases should be brought and—a very difficult question—when the investigation should be brought to an end.
The transfer of the statutory powers to consent to prosecutions to the Director of Public Prosecutions will not mean that the Law Officers will cease to consider important and sensitive cases of that kind. The Director of Public Prosecutions will automatically bring such cases to the Law Officers under the normal consultative procedures, which operate quite apart from the statutory requirement. Among the cases brought to us will certainly be a number of corruption cases. Indeed, I intend to give clear guidance to that effect. The transfer of functions to the Director of Public Prosecutions will in no way affect the Director's duty to act under the general superintendence of the Attorney-General. In clause 4(2) of the Bill we specifically reaffirm that principle.
In addition to transferring to the Director of Public Prosecutions the power to consent to, or bring, prosecutions under the scheduled statutes, the Bill makes provision for effecting future transfers without the need for an Act of Parliament both from the Law Officers to the Director, and vice versa, by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Bill contains another useful provision which will save unnecessary waste of time and administrative labour. In certain circumstances the functions of the Attorney-General may be performed by the Solicitor-General. The existing provisions in this respect are, however, unsatisfactory and inconsistent.
By virtue of section 1 of the Law Officers Act 1944, unless the office of Attorney-General is vacant or the Attorney-General is unable to act owing to absence or illness, the Solicitor-General can act on my behalf only with my specific authority given in a particular case. That means that I have to sign a separate authority each time the Solicitor-General gives a consent on my behalf. Being a conscientious Attorney-General, I naturally apply my mind in each case individually to the question whether I ought to delegate, and so read a number of papers, often unnecessarily.
Section 2(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 provides that no prosecution may be instituted without the consent of either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, so no delegation from me is required in that case, but provisions such as that are rare. Such differences are quite anomalous. Clause 3 empowers me to give directions which will rationalise this procedure.
The Bill does not, of course, extend to Scotland. Consideration was given to the question of extending it to Northern Ireland, but I decided that that was unnecessary in view of the provisions of article 7 of the Prosecution of Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. The effect of that article is that, where a transferred provision under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which required the consent of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland to the initiation or carrying on of criminal proceedings was in force before the coming into operation of that order, it is sufficient if the consent is given instead by the Director of Public Prosec-

tions for Northern Ireland. In effect, the Director gives the consent, although there, as here, he will consult the Attorney-General in any case of difficulty or sensitivity.
This provision covers any statute, whether of the Westminster or Northern Ireland Parliament, relating to a matter in respect of which the Parliament of Northern Ireland had power to legislate. It does not cover prosecutions under the repealed Special Powers Acts.
I am confident that this modest measure will commend itself to the Committee as a useful improvement of the administration of justice by simplifying the law relating to consent to prosecutions, and by rationalising the law. By avoiding duplication of effort between my Department and that of the Director of Public Prosecutions, unnecessary labour will be saved, and the resources of both Departments will be used more efficiently and economically.

4.43 p.m.

Sir Michael Havers: We are grateful to the Attorney-General for the way in which he has explained the Bill to us. The schedule ought to be sent for compulsory reading by historians. Research on it would probably turn up even more than the Attorney-General has managed to discover. One can imagine what fun Punch, Frank Johnson or Andrew Alexander would have with it. It would be a rich pasture for humorous comment for them to look at the various Acts of Parliament which have in the past required the Attorney-General's consent. Even if Bernard Levin were still"Taper ", or not silent in his present incarnation, I am sure he would manage to find it a gold mine for his running attacks on the Law Officers' Department.
We have considered seriously and carefully the various statutes which are now excluded. We felt anxious about the Explosive Substances Act and about corruption. It may be a case of offering £5 to a policeman not to run a man in for being drunk in charge, but the Attorney-General will know, as I did when I was in his Department, the number of occasions in which police officers are alleged to have been guilty of corruption—allegations which are so easy to make and so difficult to deny. I am sure that the present incumbents take just as much


care and treat the matter with the same anxiety as did Sir Peter Rawlinson, now Lord Rawlinson, and I when we were in that Department. It was so important that police officers who could be so easily attacked in this way should not have a consent given for a prosecution for corruption unless it was really felt that the case would lead to a conviction, because of the tremendous damage done to their careers.
We are in the position of having an outstandingly competent Director of Public Prosecutions—a man for whom all those who know him have nothing but admiration. That admiration applies also to his staff, which is still undermanned, but the Attorney-General and I are doing everything we can to remedy that. It is a Department which is well able to look after these problems and well able to take on the extra burdens. It is a great relief to know, too, that when the Director is in doubt he will carry on the usual practice of consulting the Law Officers. So if there is a matter of anxiety, the Director will do what he has always done in the past, and that is to go back to the Law Officers' Department and ask for its assistance.
Thus, although the critics might call this measure the"benefit to the Attorney-General Bill "—in a way, it is, because it will relieve his Department of some of the onerous duties which, certainly in my day, took up too much time, with all the pressure of other business that there was—knowing that the Director will be there with his staff to look carefully, and knowing that the Director will be able still to consult the Attorney-General, in spite of our doubts on the two areas I mentioned—the Explosive Substances Act and the corruption issue—we welcome the Bill and wish it a quick and successful passage through the House.

4.46 p.m.

Mr, Ivan Lawrence: I rise not to make a speech about a measure which will be wholly welcomed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's successor—who will shortly follow him in a post now to be relieved of a burden—but merely to ask a question which arises from something that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, and something which appears in the explanatory memorandum.
I quite understand how the Bill eases the burden upon the Attorney-General, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that it also eases the burden upon the Director of Public Prosecutions. I should be grateful if he could explain how that arises. I ask that, not in a carping manner, but because we are all concerned that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has hitherto been under extreme pressure. Moves have been made on both sides of the House to try to get the Director's office more sturdily staffed and with access to greater financial resources than hitherto.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: As so often, I am, I think, the only layman on this Committee—

Mr. Alf Bates: No.

Mr. Price: I apologise to my hon. Friend. We laymen are in a tiny minority here and—I suspect—at a slight disadvantage.
The difficulty with the schedule is that, although it gives a long list of Acts, it is not clear exactly which section of an Act refers to what. It would be a considerable labour—which I admit that I have not undertaken—to check it. I should like my right hon. Friend and learned Friend the Attorney-General to give us some indication of the other schedule which is not printed here—in other words, how much this leaves him with. What is the broad amount of statutory responsibilities and consent to prosecutions left with him after he has got rid of this lot?
I am a little worried about the arrangements my right hon. and learned Friend has made concerning the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act. There might be different opinions about whether we have an outstanding Director of Public Prosecutions, but I suspect that that is quite irrelevant. We should try to get the matter right. As I understand the arrangements that the Attorney-General outlined, in terms of politically sensitive prosecutions under that Act, the Director would have the sort of consultations that he normally has with the Law Officers. But as I understand matters, the decision as to whether he enters into those consultations is now the Director's and not


the Attorney-General's. Thus, we are in the Bill we are handing over lock, stock and barrel, however widespread it may be, every politically sensitive corruption prosecution to the Director, with the proviso that the Director always acts under the general supervision of the Attorney-General.
Just as we have come out of the Poulson saga it is important to keep in mind that if one were to come across, either in local government or in some vast quango area, the sort of depth of corruption which we saw in the Poulson case, the House would, I believe, wish the Law Officers to retain, as it were, de jure control as well as de facto control over such prosecutions. From the arrangements outlined by the Attorney-General, I was not absolutely convinced that that would be so. I hope that he will refer to this question and reservation when he winds up.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I am rather surprised at one measure which has been included in the list after the so-called extensive weeding out. I refer to the Newspapers, Printers, and Reading Rooms Repeal Act 1869. The relevant section of that Act provides that any
 person who shall print any paper or book…and who shall not print…his or her name and usual place of abode or business…shall…forfeit a sum not more than five pounds ".
I should have thought that that, too, should go. I dare say that the Attorney-General has received representations from publishers about the extraordinary nature and triviality of the offence involved. In sorting out these matters, could he not have deleted this one? In that case it would not require the consent of either the Law Officers of the Crown or the DPP.
There are other matters which could be left to a more informed and better educated public. After all, we have had education for 150 years in this country. There are one or two rather complicated measures in the schedule—the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, for example. I should not have thought that many members of the public would come along and start too many actions which would cause a great deal of consternation in the Attorney-General's office or that of the Direc-

tor, and that this could have been left to the usual processes.
Another measure which I believe should fall into the same category is the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971, under which quite sizeable damages can be awarded in certain specific instances. Perhaps references could be left to the public themselves instead of needing to go back to the Director.
Another such measure is the Law of Property Act 1925, section 183, which provides that
 any person disposing of property or any interest therein…who…conceals from the purchaser any…incumbrance…with intent…to defraud 
is guilty of a misdemeanour punishable by a fine or imprisonment. The Attorney-General said that he had about 100 cases per year under the Explosive Substances Act and about 100 cases under the prevention of corruption Acts. Has he had many cases in the past five or six years under section 183 of the Law of Property Act 1925? Perhaps that may be left to the people concerned who feel that they have been defrauded, who could start prosecutions if they thought that desirable.
I do not want to take too long, but I wish to mention one other case which seems a little serious—the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and the question of the reporting of committal proceedings. This came up recently in the Thorpe case and is very politically sensitive. There, of course, the Director of Public Prosecutions has a dual role. He would have to conduct the prosecution and would also have to assent or dissent to the bringing of a private prosecution. I should have thought that rather an extraordinary position in which to be. Perhaps the Attorney-General would consider that a little further and give us a general view of his position.
There is another point, which concerns the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955, which I understand covers horror comics. I should have thought that that could well be left to the public to decide and to bring their own prosecutions if necessary. Is it really necessary for us to call upon the Director himself to vet the proceedings?
I am fully in favour of this piece of legislation. I am only bringing out the


corner point in order to get some sort of answer from the Attorney-General. I believe that the Bill will not lead to a lowering of the burden. In many cases, on politically sensitive issues, there will be consultation with the Law Officers. The file will have to be sent to them for consideration and, of course, it will be read twice rather than once. However, if that is the way in which the Government wish to do it, I think that we should approve.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: The Bill represents an attempt to reduce the burden on the Attorney-General's Department and is a recognition of the onerous burden carried by the Law Officers and a very small staff. It has always seemed incredible to me that we allow such a small staff to carry so heavy a burden, even though the Department does not carry legislative responsibility.
If one cannot get more staff, the only thing to do is to reduce the number of the Department's responsibilities. However, I should like to think that the diminution of executive responsibilities implied in the Bill means that the Attorney-General's Department is clearing the decks for the day when some Lord Chancellor or the House of Commons decides that it is about time the Attorney-General carried a legislative function and that he should have a Department to match.
It is a curious oddity in the House of Commons that the Attorney-General is put up like a sitting duck to answer Questions to the Lord Chancellor in respect of legal policy decided by the Lord Chancellor when he has no constitutional position in influencing the legal policy of the Lord Chancellor. The House of Commons insists that it is the premier forum for legislation. It also insists in all other matters on having Ministers who not only answer in the Commons but also help to make policy themselves.
However, the Lord Chancellor is sitting on a huge bureaucracy in the House of Lords, and the poor Attorney-General is put up to answer for him, while carrying no responsibility for decisions. It is anomalous, and I do not understand why the House of Commons persists in allowing such a situation.
Of course I welcome the Bill, and I hope that in its small way it will make the burden of the Law Officers and their diligent staff a little less than it has been hitherto.

4.59 p.m.

The Attorney-General: May I have leave of the Committee to speak again?
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) and to the Committee for the welcome that has generally been given to the Bill. I am also grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) for what he said about the hard duties of the Department over which I exercise responsibility.
Perhaps I ought to say that those duties which are ours by virtue of acting on an agency basis, as it were, for the Lord Chancellor are nothing compared with our quite unseen duties advising our colleagues in Government on legal, constitutional and similar matters affecting other Departments and the Government generally. It is always a matter of curiosity to me that the public rarely hear about these duties, which take up probably 95 per cent. of my time and cover an enormously wide area, extending from Brussels to Antarctica. The public hear mainly about the occasions when representatives of the media complain bitterly that I either have or have not brought a prosecution, depending upon their particular interests. That is, however, only a very small part of my task, and any lessening of the burden will be very welcome.
The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) asked, very reasonably, how it came about that what we proposed in the Bill would lessen the burden of the Director as well as the Law Officers. The answer is that in cases such as I instanced—for example, a minor explosives case where somebody has been playing around with fireworks in the garden shed—the matter comes up through the police to the Director and the Director has to study the case and put all the evidence into proper shape in the ordinary way. Then, when he has made out what may be, from his point of view, a perfectly simple case, where he is advised by counsel and there is no real necessity for anything beyond that, he has to do the work of submitting the case to the Law Officers.


They then send it back with their consent or perhaps with a question which the Director has to follow up.
The Director has the extra burden of the submission of the work which ought to be quite unnecessary in many cases, and which, when the Law Officers are heavily burdened with other things, will also take up a good deal of unnecessary time and cause delay. A double burden is involved
From his own experience, the hon. Member for Burton will understand that in a case which may be fairly complex, even though the matters involved are perhaps relatively trivial and the penalty at the end of the day may be relatively small, there may be a stream of correspondence between the Director and the Law Officers at different stages. The Law Officers must be informed at an early stage, and so on. That is where the duplication arises.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) asked first how much was left to the Attorney-General. I take it that he was referring to these particular tasks rather than the more general aspects of the Attorney-General's duties—the other 95 per cent.—on which I have already said a word or two. I can tell him that the consent of the Attorney-General will still be required under the Biological Weapons Act 1974, the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, the Criminal Law Act 1977, in relation to conspiracy, provisions under the Customs and Excise Act 1952, the Genocide Act 1969, the Housing Act 1957, the Hijacking Act 1971, the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978, the Official Secrets Acts, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts, the Protection of Aircraft Act 1973, the Public Order Acts, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 and the Theatres Act 1968.
There are various offences. I hope that I shall not be asked to detail them. There will still be a substantial burden. We want to look at some of those offences again as time goes by. For example, when we have the Williams committee report on obscenity and kindred offences we shall no doubt be looking at the effect that it might have on the Theatres Act and provisions under it. Some of these

measures may not survive for ever in any event. One hopes that they will not.
My hon. Friend expressed some hesitation in relation to the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act—for example, whether the decision on consultation will, in practice, be that of the Director, and the Law Officers will not come into the matter at all. If one transfers power to somebody else there is always that possible danger.
One is inevitably taking some risk by doing that, but, as I said in my opening remarks, I intend to lay down clear guidelines to the Director. Although it is hardly necessary for that to be done, it will be done because it is already clearly established between his department and mine what kind of cases ought to be referred to the Law Officers and where we should be consulted.
In passing over as important a subject as the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, we shall be very careful to make quite sure that all the sensitive areas are properly covered in the guidelines, so that there will be no room for doubt.
Lest difficulties crop up in future, we have made provision in the Bill for changes. We have provided this flexible method of dealing with the matter. If we find insuperable difficulties we can alter the schedule and make such changes as may be required.
The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) would have liked us to go further than is proposed in the Bill. Looking at the schedule, he suggested that in many cases there was no need for a consent provision. I would not disagree with what he says about that. Inded, one can go well outside the consent provisions enumerated in the schedule into other fields and one may find the same situation.
While I have held my office, I have sought to discourage the indiscriminate inclusion of consent provisions in favour of Ministers, for example, where it did not seem to me to be necessary. But when other Departments are responsible for Bills I can only advise, and they must take their own course, subject to the views of the House, if it spots what may seem to be an unnecessary consent provision.
Unfortunately, that kind of provision is the sort of provision that the House rarely does spot. It is the kind of clause that goes through on the nod. If we had


asked the working party to do the very thorough-going job that the hon. Member has in mind, which I hope will be done in due course, it would have taken a good deal longer. I very much doubt whether we should have been able to produce within the time any legislation on the matter, certainly not a measure which gives the first aid which this Bill gives and which remedies the immediate situation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that his suggestion will continue to be examined, and, if not by the working party—though I am sure that the working party will be looking generally at these matters—it is the sort of matter that the Royal Commission on criminal procedure will be looking at. Indeed, it falls generally into the pattern of what the future status of the Director should be and the general question which will, no doubt, be discussed by that body on the future of private prosecutions and such matters that raise wide issues.

Mr. Skeet: Will the Attorney-General give in answer to a parliamentary question not merely those matters that have been transferred and are in the schedule but those which have been retained by him, including the actual sections in question? That would be a clarification

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE


Goodhew, Mr. Victor (Chairman)
Lawrence, Mr.


Anderson, Mr.
Lyons, Mr. Edward


Attorney-General, The
Morgan, Mr.


Bates, Mr.
Price, Mr. Christopher


Body, Mr.
Skeet, Mr.


Havers, Sir M.
Stradling Thomas, Mr. John

to the public of where the demarcation falls.

The Attorney-General: There is a useful little booklet, available in the Library, I believe, issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions, called"Prosecution of Offences Regulations 1978 ", following the making recently of new regulations. It is an extremely valuable booklet because it sets out all the offences. I commend it to hon. Members. It also indicates the duties of the Director, what matters he is required to deal with, what matters he may deal with, what matters the police have to send to him, what matters they may send to him, and so on.

Mr. Lawrence: rose—

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, having spoken once in this Second Reading Committee, is unable to speak a second time.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Consents to Prosecutions Bill ought to be read a Second time.

Committee rose at thirteen minutes past Five o'clock.